Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« The times they are a'changing.... | Main | Erin Simpson speaking for gun rights at the SHOT Show »

Great 4th Amendment case

Posted by David Hardy · 23 January 2012 10:31 AM

U.S. v. Jones holds that attaching a GPS device to an auto constitutes a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. 9-0, on the result. Scalia writes for the majority, The liberal wing concurs, with a rather confusing opinion, starting by denying this is a Fourth Amendment issue, and ending by agreeing that it is. I can see the reasoning (that the violation was not the attachment of the device, but its use to monitor) but the wording is a little hard to follow.

· General con law

2 Comments | Leave a comment

NevadaSteve | January 24, 2012 5:48 AM | Reply

David,

You don't want to make the wording too clear or else what would lawyers have to argue about?

:^)

I see the point but isn't it moot? You have to attach the device in order to collect the data. I did get a chuckle out of Sotomayor's speculation about a constable secreting himself in a horse-drawn coach as a comparison.

As always I enjoy stopping by your blog, you help me keep myself educated (and often amused.)

fwb | January 24, 2012 8:24 AM | Reply

So quoting, "the violation is not to attach", can the police or others do ANYTHING they wish to attach ANYTHING they wish to a private vehicle without the owner's permission? How about the police placing a bumper sticker pointing out past offenses such as child molestation or domestic violence? What the hell is the difference between this an attaching a tracking device?

Cooley covers the 4th in a complete manner.

Leave a comment