Legal News

We have two stories that might interest you this week:

First, on Monday, the Supreme Court issued a key Fourth Amendment decision, holding that attaching a GPS tracking device to a vehicle constitutes a search and that authorities need a warrant to perform such a search in most cases.  What implications do you think this case will have for the future? In what other ways do you think current and evolving technology will alter what constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment? You can read the full decision here.

Second, in local news, a Lake County, Indiana judge made an example out of a juror who did not return for jury duty.  After the juror did not follow the judge’s instructions and return to court as he was supposed to, the judge forced him to stand in front of the courthouse with a sign that said he failed to appear.  Do you approve of this judge’s actions? Or are they too extreme?

Leave us a comment and share your thoughts!

One thought on “Legal News

  1. We just discussed the Supreme Court’s decision in Crim Pro yesterday; it seems like it will have some interesting implications, because the Court (for the first time in a long time) didn’t rely on the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test and instead looked back to old trespass laws. Professor Bradley pointed out that because the case depended on the physical trespass of putting the GPS on the car, the Court avoided the issue of whether it would be legal to obtain the same information in another manner (e.g. if the car already has a GPS installed and the police can access that information).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s