Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > The Constitution & The Judicial Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The Constitution & The Judicial Branch Discuss Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by foundit66 ???? Pen registers record the number dialed. Not location. Irrelevant and untrue. If they record the ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 06-14-2017, 05:20 PM
lurch907's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alaska, the greatest place on earth.
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,305
Thanks: 997
Thanked 2,645 Times in 1,557 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
????
Pen registers record the number dialed. Not location.
Irrelevant and untrue. If they record the landline number you called from, it's pretty obvious where you were, in fact (after confirming you made the phone call) it pinpoints your location with more accuracy than cell tower info.
The point is, as was said in the ruling I quoted, the number dialed is information record for legitimate business purposes and with no expectation of privacy, same cell tower records.

Quote:
And like I said, even if we were to blindly assume this was oranges to oranges, your ruling was not the final state of the situation.
Today, citizens CONTINUE to give the phone company the number information they are dialing, but legislation passed after the ruling dictates that the government cannot just blindly demand that information without showing just cause.

Do you get the importance of that fact?
The people HAVE LEGISLATED that they have an expectation of privacy from the government, therefore the legal landscape changed.
If the exact same case were tried today, the courts would smack down the government.
A law was passed saying that law enforcement had to obtain a subpoena (still not a warrant), this means it is illegal for law enforcement to use a pen register without a subpoena, it does not make it unconstitutional. The topic hear is constitutionality. It's illegal to drive thirty in a twenty five zone, it is not unconstitutional. See the difference? Now, if you want to petition congress to pass a law saying the police must have a court order to obtain cell tower records, I'll be happy to call my reps and encourage them to sign it, but that still wont make it unconstitutional.

Quote:
You're assuming that one piece of information is just as protected (or not as protected) as another.
A grotesquely inaccurate assumption.
I'm not assuming anything, I'm stating that information voluntarily give to a third party (aside from lawyer, priest, etc.) does not fall under any reasonable expectation of privacy and does not classify as a "search and seizure" as described under the 4th amendment. A statement is affirmed by several court rulings.

Quote:
And regardless, that's irrelevant as compared to the message that the people sent the government regarding an expectation of privacy.
The SCOTUS doesn't (at least it's not suppose to) decide cases based on "a message sent by the people", it decides them based on their constitutionality. Again, pass a law requiring a court order, I'd support it.

Quote:
Location data had no part of the case, but you're blindly assuming the same conclusion.
The number a person dialed as compared to that person's location are two entirely different pieces of information. The second should obviously warrant more expectations of privacy than the former.
Nope, still falls under third party doctrine as established in Smith v Maryland. For whatever reason, you want to harp on the type of information turned over to the third party, but it's irrelevant.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 06-16-2017, 11:36 AM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,722
Thanks: 9,755
Thanked 14,843 Times in 8,982 Posts
Post Re: Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
????
Pen registers record the number dialed. Not location.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907 View Post
Irrelevant and untrue. If they record the landline number you called from, it's pretty obvious where you were, in fact (after confirming you made the phone call) it pinpoints your location with more accuracy than cell tower info.
The pen register doesn't "pinpoint" any location.
The telephone company knowing where a specific phone number is routed to is completely independent of the pen register's functionality.

Show anywhere in the explanation of the pen register operation where it records the location.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_register#Definitions


Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907 View Post
The point is, as was said in the ruling I quoted, the number dialed is information record for legitimate business purposes and with no expectation of privacy, same cell tower records.
And yet again you just tried to equate the privacy expectations on two separate pieces of information.
* number dialed, and
* physical location of the cell caller.

They are NOT equivalent.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907 View Post
A law was passed saying that law enforcement had to obtain a subpoena (still not a warrant), this means it is illegal for law enforcement to use a pen register without a subpoena, it does not make it unconstitutional. The topic hear is constitutionality.
Again, that law demonstrates an expectation of privacy established by the American people.
Before, the court could proclaim that information does not have any expectation of privacy.
The fact that the American people have instituted a law to help protect that information demonstrates an expectation of privacy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907 View Post
I'm not assuming anything...

You just stated it above, again.
So don't pretend that you aren't trying to assume that a dialed number's privacy is equivalent to a cell caller's location's privacy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907 View Post
... I'm stating that information voluntarily give to a third party (aside from lawyer, priest, etc.) does not fall under any reasonable expectation of privacy and does not classify as a "search and seizure" as described under the 4th amendment. A statement is affirmed by several court rulings.
We've already covered the "third party" problem.
The government is restricted by the constitution.

A landlord may have permission to enter a rented tenant's location. He may bring in a plumber or electrician.
But the landlord cannot grant permission for the police to enter the rented tenant's location.

The third party is irrelevant.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907 View Post
The SCOTUS doesn't (at least it's not suppose to) decide cases based on "a message sent by the people", it decides them based on their constitutionality. Again, pass a law requiring a court order, I'd support it.
"a message sent by the people" is about "expectation of privacy".
The courts look at such laws passed to help understand the people's expressed "expectations of privacy".


Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907 View Post
Nope, still falls under third party doctrine as established in Smith v Maryland. For whatever reason, you want to harp on the type of information turned over to the third party, but it's irrelevant.
Because the two pieces of information do not have the same level of expectations of privacy.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
cell, court, data, decide, for, location, need, phone, police, supreme, warrants

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0