THE
SUPREME COURT HAS RULED IN FAVOR OF PROTECTING SOME OF OUR
PRIVACIES AND THIS IS SPECIFICALLY PERTAINING TO CELL
PHONE LOCATION DATA.
APPARENTLY, THE SUPREME COURT
RULING INDICATES THAT POLICE WHO WANT TO ACCESS THAT DATA
NEED TO DO SO AFTER THEY OBTAIN A WARRANT.
THIS CASE WAS
BROUGHT FORTH BY AN INDIVIDUAL WHO GOT ARRESTED BECAUSE OF A
STRING OF ROBBERIES THAT HE DID COMMIT AND THE EVIDENCE USED
AGAINST HIM INCLUDED GPS DATA FROM HIS PHONE AND SO THE
ARGUMENT WAS THAT THERE WAS NO WARRANT OBTAINED IN ORDER
TO GET ACCESS TO THAT DATA AND SO IT WENT ALL THE WAY TO
THE SUPREME COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT RULED, YES,
POLICE DO NEED A WARRANT IN CASES LIKE THIS.
HOWEVER, THERE IS AN EXCEPTION BEING MADE FOR EMERGENCY
SITUATIONS.
THIS IS A GREAT RULING AND IT WAS THE FOUR LIBERALS AND
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS WHICH IS A LITTLE SURPRISING
BUT VERY WELCOME AND THE MORE HE DOES THIS, THE MORE THE HE
WOULD EARN THE RIGHT TO SAY, HE CALLS BALLS AND STRIKES AS HE
SAID IN HIS CONFIRMATION HEARINGS AND IS NOT DOING IT
BASED ON POLITICS.
I WISH IT WAS BROADER.
HE DOES NOT APPLY
TO A LOT OF THE THINGS.
THEY CAN STILL SEARCH SOME BUSINESS
RECORDS, THEY CAN CERTAINLY OBTAIN WORDS IN EMERGENCY
SITUATIONS, UNDERSTANDABLE, BUT THERE ARE SOME OTHER CASES TO
THAT THEY STILL HAVE SOME BROAD POWERS BUT THIS IS REALLY GOOD
BECAUSE FIRST OF ALL, IF WE CARED ABOUT THE ENTIRE
CONSTITUTION, THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS AN ENORMOUS PART
OF THAT AND THE ONE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION
THAT PROTECTS IS THE MOST SO IF BIG GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWED TO
SPY IN ON ANYTHING WE DO WITH NO SUSPICION AT ALL, CAN THEY
FIND SOMETHING YOU DID WRONG IN YOUR WHOLE LIFE IF THEY
CHOSE TO TARGET YOU FOR WHATEVER REASON?
MY GUESS IS YES.
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITS THAT.
YOU
CAN'T JUST GONE FISHING EXPEDITIONS OR TARGET PEOPLE,
YOU HAVE TO HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION.
IF YOU DO, THEN YOU
CAN GO GET A WARRANT FROM ACCOR AND THE COURT WILL SAY THAT
MAKES SENSE, YOU ARE INVESTIGATING THIS GUY BECAUSE
HE WAS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THESE ROBBERIES AND YOU HAVE
ENOUGH EVIDENCE, LET ME GIVE YOU A WARRANT, NICE SEARCHES
PHONE AND YOU SEE HE WAS IN THOSE AREAS, GO AHEAD AND USE
THE EVIDENCE.
THAT IS CALLED DUE PROCESS, OUR SYSTEM OF
GOVERNMENT AND THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE ENFORCED A HERE
IS ALMOST A LITTLE SHOCKING IN THIS DAY AND AGE.
IT IS.
WHEN IT COMES TO PRIVACY ISSUES I FEEL LIKE
COURTS TENSILE RULE AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AGAIN AND
AGAIN, ESPECIALLY IN THIS CASE.
IT IS INVOLVING A MAN WHO DID
COMMIT THE ROBBERIES AND HE WAS CONVICTED OF COMMITTING THIS
ROBBERIES.
BY THE WAY, JUST BECAUSE OF THIS RULING, IT DOES
NOT MEAN THAT THOSE CONVICTIONS WILL BE OVERTURNED.
HE IS
STILL FACING THE CONSEQUENCES FOR WHAT HE DID.
WHAT THE
SUPREME COURT DID HERE WAS THE RIGHT THING AND JUST TO GIVE
YOU A QUOTE FROM JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS WHO DID WRITE THE
OPINION.
HE SAID:
I LOVE THAT THEY ARE TAKING THAT STANCE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT
REALLY TAKE MUCH TO EVEN GET THAT WARRANT.
ALL THEY HAVE TO
DO, THE AUTHORITIES IS SAY OR PROVE THAT THERE IS
PROBABLE CAUSE AND IN THIS CASE THERE WAS.
THEY JUST DID NOT WANT TO TAKE THE EXTRA STEP IN
OBTAINING THAT WARRANT THE.
I THINK THAT IS A KEY POINT.
THE PROCEDURE TO GET A WARRANT
HAS BECOME SO EASY FOR THE POLICE AND FOR DETECTIVES AND
INVESTIGATORS THAT THIS RULING IS CERTAINLY WELCOME AND IT IS
A HUGE SURPRISE, ROBERTS SWINGING WITH THE LIBERALS LIKE
HE DID WITH OBAMA CARE, BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE SUCH A MUCH
DEEPER REFORM OF THE WAY WE PROSECUTE CRIMES, THE WAY WE
INVESTIGATE CRIMES.
OFTEN THESE WARRANTS, THE COPS KNOW
WHICH JUDGES LEAD WHICH WAY IN TERMS OF IF THE WARRANTS CASES
A LITTLE WE, THEY KNOW THEY HAVE TO GO TO THAT GUY.
IF
THEY HAVE A CLEAR CUT CASE THEY CAN GO TO THE TOUGHER GUY AND
THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF ABUSES THAT HAPPEN ALL THE TIME, SO
WHILE THIS RULING IS VERY WELCOME, THE SUPREME COURT IS A
LIMITED VEHICLE TO MAKE THIS KIND OF CHANGE.
WE ALL WE ULTIMATELY NEED BROAD-BASED POLITICS.
I AGREE, THINK WE NEED TO MAYBE RAISE THE STANDARDS
FOR OBTAINING WARRANTS IN THE FIRST PLACE BUT I FEEL
LIKE THAT IS A LOSING BATTLE.
I THINK WHAT WAS REALLY INTERESTING WAS THE REFERENCE
THAT WAS MADE TO 1984 AND WHEN SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT BIG
BROTHER AND I JUST THINK, WHEN I THINK ABOUT ALL OF THE THINGS
THAT ARE HAPPENING, THESE KINDS OF THINGS ARE ONE STEP IN THE
FIGHT AWAY FROM IT BECAUSE WHILE WE WERE DISTRACTED BY THE
JACKET, THEY WERE ATTACKING HEALTHCARE, MEDICAID AND
MEDICARE.
THEY KEEP US SO WE ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO ALL
OF THE STUFF THAT IS GOING ON BECAUSE SO MUCH IS GOING ON AT
THE SAME TIME AND I WANT TO ALWAYS FIGHT FOR OUR PRIVACY.
WE ARE IN DANGER.
THERE ARE CORRUPTED POLICE IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND
WHY SHOULD THEY HAVE ACCESS TO OUR LOCATIONS?
I THINK WE NEEDED A VICTORY.
BY THE WAY, I KNOW THAT A LOT OF THE CONSERVATIVES ON THE
COURT, THE FOUR OTHERS ALMOST ALWAYS GO POLICE, WHATEVER THEY
SAY, YOU WIN.
CLEAREST COMMENTS I DON'T THINK WAS
AWAKE DURING ANY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BUT IF YOU ARE A
REAL CONSERVATIVES, THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT CONSERVATIVES AND
PROGRESSIVES SHOULD AGREE ON.
YOU DON'T WANT BIG GOVERNMENT
TRACKING EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO, AND REMEMBER BIG GOVERNMENT
COULD BE OBAMA OR BILL CLINTON OR HILLARY CLINTON DIE IN 2012
AND BY THE WAY, THERE WAS A SERIES, IT CONTINUES TO BE
SHOCKING, A SERIES OF GOOD DECISIONS ON THE COURT ON
PRIVACY ISSUES NINE 2012 THEY SAID THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT BUT
A GPS TRACKING DEVICE ON YOUR VEHICLE WITHOUT A WARRANT.
IT'S LIKE A MOVIE.
BUT THAT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS.
YEAH, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO
TRACK A GUY IF YOU THINK YOU DID A SERIES OF CRIMES AND YOU
HAVE SOME EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT.
YOU NEED MORE EVIDENCE,
THAT IS HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS, YOU GET A WAR AND TRACK THEM
BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO PUT RANDOM DEVICES ON PEOPLE'S
CARS.
CAN YOU IMAGINE IF A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT DECIDED THESE
RIGHT-WINGERS ARE PROBLEMATIC, I'M GOING TO PUT DEVICES ON
ALL THEIR CARS AND CHECK WITH A GO AND IF ANY OF THEM GO TO
THE WRONG BUILDING FOR WHATEVER REASON I'M GOING TO GET THEM.
THAT WOULD BE TERRIBLE.
IT'S INTERESTING THOUGH MY BABY I AM NOT REMEMBERING IT
CORRECTLY, AND I FEEL LIKE CONSERVATIVES HAVE BEEN
SHOCKINGLY CONSISTENT IN FAVOR OF VIOLATIONS OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS WHEN THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION, WHEN THE NSA UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
WAS CAUGHT INDISCRIMINATELY'S EYEING ON AMERICANS IN
COLLECTING METADATA ON US, CONSERVATIVES SEEM TO
OFFENDED A LITTLE BIT OR AT LEAST THEY WERE QUIET,
THEY WEREN'T AS CRITICAL.
CONSERVATIVES CLAIM THEY BELIEVE IN SMALL
GOVERNMENT, BUT THEY REALLY DON'T.
ULTIMATELY THEY BELIEVE IN REALLY BIG GOVERNMENT ñ
FUNDAMENTALLY BELIEVE IS WHO IS BEING TARGETED BY THE
VIOLENCE A BIG GOVERNMENT AND AS LONG AS THE RIGHT
PEOPLE ARE BEING TARGETED, THEY ARE FINE WITH IT.
WE ALSO THE WIRE.
CREDIT TO CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS FOR WHAT I BELIEVE
ACTUALLY SICK STICKING TO CHEW CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES RATHER
THAN THE ONES THAT NANDO IS TALKING ABOUT.
AS LONG AS YOU ARE DOING IT ANOTHER GUY, THAT IS NOT
HOW THE CONSTITUTION WORKS.