Off to #SCOTUS! It’s Carpenter morn: https://www.google.com/amp/www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/carpenter-v-united-states-2/amp/ …pic.twitter.com/FmAh3cneqV
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Off to #SCOTUS! It’s Carpenter morn: https://www.google.com/amp/www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/carpenter-v-united-states-2/amp/ …pic.twitter.com/FmAh3cneqV
#SCOTUS, Nov. 29, 2017. A relatively calm morning, as the justices prepare to hear what could be a very important case about what the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement means in the internet age.pic.twitter.com/SkncA5lYst
Incredibly interesting arguments from a very engaged court this morning about whether a warrant is required for the gov’t to obtain 100+ days of historical cell-site records for a cell-phone user.
My first take out of #SCOTUS — and it’s one that surprises me — is the level to which Michael Dreeben, the federal gov’t’s top criminal appellate lawyer, appeared unwilling to engage with the realities of living in 2017.
Dreeben is one of the best Supreme Court advocates alive today, and he’s an incredible lawyer, but, today, he just was unwilling to engage in a real debate about how the changed ways we live our lives affect privacy or property rights in new ways.
And, I think that affected the justices as the argument wore on. While it’s clear that they’re not sure of how to resolve the case, his unwillingness to budge at all seemed to pull justices away from him, especially the Chief (and Gorsuch, perhaps), throughout the 80 minutes.
For those not following the case, the govt’s position — one Dreeben just repeated in different forms over his 40 minutes — was: Cell-site records are a business record, so it’s not a search, so the Fourth Amendment isn’t implicated. Period.
On the other side, the questions started off by asking about why cell-site records were more sensitive than other potentially sensitive records (bank records, phone numbers called) that the court has allowed to be collected without a warrant under the third-party doctrine.
The questions veered basically into a debate about what the rule would be — the "what would the opinion look like" question that Breyer loves.
Then, Dreeben got up, and just didn't engage in the debate that the justices were there to have. It was unfortunate, because this is a really big issue — and one that the justices seemed to be taking seriously.
Anyway, I'll have more later! But, there's a first look.
FYI: For #lawdork folks, here's the Carpenter transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-402_d1o2.pdf …
Manage!?!?!?
Go get ‘em, tiger.
the way this day has started, i'd say good luck to us all? Enjoy! :)
Safe travels. It's a dangerous world out there this morning.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.