• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Obama Names Two Lawyers to FTC Slots | Main | At Porteous Hearing, Lawyer Says No Return Expected on Cash Gifts to Judge »

November 17, 2009



Actually this case is an excellent example of "why" a warrant should be required. The Jeep was not registered to the defendant and only driven by the defendant periodically. This means that anyone driving the vehicle was subject to "warrantless surveillance" during the entire month.

William V. DePaulo

Police tracking of vehicles is, like a lot of police activity, productive as a means of fighting crime. That is not a reason to by pass the requirement of a warrant. It is no answer to say that there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy." If we strip away the requirement of a warrant here, what expectations of privacy reasonably survive anywhere? Why not put a GPS on the cars of all SCT justices, and their wives and law clerks...after all they don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy....and it just might make arguing your case before them more "effective" if, for instance, you could drop allusions in the middle of oral argument like, "Well, Justice Thompson,let's just assume, to pick a random example, that a prominent politician crossed the 14th Street bridge from DC to VA and drove to 123 Pine Ave (which only you and he know is the address of his mistress). Believe me, you will have his attention...and maybe even a vote...and you haven't even violated his privacy. Wanna live in that society? Not moi.


If find this post interesting. I think the police should be allowed to us a GPS tracking system put on a suspects auto to find out where they have been, especially concerning prior offenses as auto theft or child sex offenses.

It is no different than physical surveillance, plus the police would have a record of the suspect's "haunts".

Thanks for your post.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad