D***–the Supreme Court is confused.
I explained in my column last week the Constitution is beyond dead and has been since “the Founding Fathers decided to use loose wording to denote how many powers the federal government can usurp from the people.” It turns out this week, though, the Supreme Court isn’t purposefully shredding the Bill of Rights ; it honestly just doesn’t understand the reasons behind its own sporadic rulings.
In January of this year, the court actually did its job in protecting civil liberties. The case, United States v. Jones, began in November 2011 and lasted a little over two months. The government’s multiple attempts to convict an alleged drug kingpin based in D.C . eventually succeeded, leading to a sentence of life imprisonment.
Luckily, Jones had saved enough money to hire a good lawyer who quickly pointed out to the Supreme Court police officers had placed a GPS tracker on his client’s Jeep without a search warrant.
Officers desperately argued their actions were constitutional because, unlike “regular searches,” GPS tracking is high-tech and doesn’t involve continual physical interference.
The justices unanimously disagreed, and Jones’ conviction was overturned.
Unfortunately the seemingly logical week in legal land turned on its head as we entered April. Information obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union depicts a large web of potentially illegal activity committed by police officers during the course of various investigations. Law enforcement agencies-at not only the federal level but at the state and local levels, too-have been using surveillance practices involving tracking citizens’ movements through cell phones. Only 5 percent of these agencies received proper warrants.
The ACLU writes of its findings, “The government’s location tracking policies should be clear, uniform, and protective of privacy, but instead are in a state of chaos, with agencies in different towns following different rules-or in some cases, having no rules at all.” Yet, due the United States v. Jones ruling’s dependence upon the physical presence of GPS trackers, these agencies may slip through a legal loophole.
The Supreme Court case following this leak should set a clear precedent pertaining to the applicability of the Fourth Amendment in our increasingly technology-based communities. Either way, you’re completely screwed once you’re arrested now.
Albert Florence, his pregnant wife, and their 4-year-old son were driving to dinner in celebration of purchasing a new house in 2005. A state trooper pulled them over and arrested Florence for his refusal to pay a traffic ticket.
He was incarcerated for six days and was the subject of two invasive strip searches, even though he had documentation showing he had paid it off.
The Supreme Court ruled in the ensuing case last week, Florence v. Burlington, it is constitutional for law enforcers to strip search individuals who are arrested for crimes as insignificant as traffic violations without suspicion, boiling down to an explanation of how “the needs of the [correctional] institution” trump the Constitution in many scenarios.
We can now assume a clear message pertaining Supreme Court’s opinion of the judicial process: “You have civil liberties… until they catch you. Then you’re on your own.
