OK, I have to go get ready for SCOTUS. Manage the fires without me for a bit, all.
-
-
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 -
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.