Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

After reading your point I wondered whether the "reasonable" distinction had any bearing on the requirement for a warrant. The warrant requirement is what I'm most interested in here. I came across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_exception which seems particularly relevant. Apparently motor vehicles have a lower expectation of privacy, so I wonder whether this means that a separate ruling is needed on whether GPS trackers on motor vehicles need a warrant.



As the article states, the Supreme Court has already ruled that putting a GPS tracker on a vehicle requires a warrant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012)


Yes, this ruling is a pretty straightforward application of United States v. Jones, rather than much of a development in 4th-amendment law. The opinion [1] is 4 1/2 pages long, and doesn't do much more than say exactly that: it points out that the lower court's holding is plainly incompatible with Jones, and sends it back down to be reheard accordingly.

[1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-593_o7jq.pdf




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: