OK, I have to go get ready for SCOTUS. Manage the fires without me for a bit, all.
-
-
#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
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread -
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.Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread -
The questions veered basically into a debate about what the rule would be — the "what would the opinion look like" question that Breyer loves.
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread -
Anyway, I'll have more later! But, there's a first look.
Show this thread -
FYI: For
#lawdork folks, here's the Carpenter transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-402_d1o2.pdf …Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
How long is/was line ? I so desperately wanted to go :(
-
Are you coming for Masterpiece?
-
Ugh no. Bar prep time.

- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Thank you! I learn from your work.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.