T
The420Guy
Guest
In a close victory for privacy rights, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
Monday that police need to get a warrant before scanning people's home
with high-tech devices.
The ruling reaffirmed the sanctity of people's homes -- extremely
important as law enforcement agencies acquire ever-evolving high-tech
monitoring systems.
Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Antonin Scalia overturned a lower
court decision that allowed federal officers to use a heat-sensing
device to detect hot spots in a house. Although such equipment cannot
see through walls, in this case it enabled officers to get a warrant to
search an Oregon house and arrest a man for growing marijuana.
Because of that distinction, the dissenters, led by Justice John Paul
Stevens, said gathering information about the walls and roof of a house
does not constitute an undue intrusion.
But Scalia's majority opinion said monitoring people's activities at
home is a clear intrusion on their privacy, no matter how stealthy or
benign the device may appear to be. An entire house, Scalia said, should
be held safe "from prying government eyes."
After a mixed record on privacy in recent years that seemed to tip more
toward police than individuals, Monday's ruling was something of a
welcome surprise. Although Stevens reasonably cautioned his colleagues
for overreaching by constraining future technology, the principle the
decision upheld is more important: No matter how much technology allows
for invasions of privacy, the Constitution bars it, and will continue
to.
Newshawk: Be a Newshawk - MapInc
Monday that police need to get a warrant before scanning people's home
with high-tech devices.
The ruling reaffirmed the sanctity of people's homes -- extremely
important as law enforcement agencies acquire ever-evolving high-tech
monitoring systems.
Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Antonin Scalia overturned a lower
court decision that allowed federal officers to use a heat-sensing
device to detect hot spots in a house. Although such equipment cannot
see through walls, in this case it enabled officers to get a warrant to
search an Oregon house and arrest a man for growing marijuana.
Because of that distinction, the dissenters, led by Justice John Paul
Stevens, said gathering information about the walls and roof of a house
does not constitute an undue intrusion.
But Scalia's majority opinion said monitoring people's activities at
home is a clear intrusion on their privacy, no matter how stealthy or
benign the device may appear to be. An entire house, Scalia said, should
be held safe "from prying government eyes."
After a mixed record on privacy in recent years that seemed to tip more
toward police than individuals, Monday's ruling was something of a
welcome surprise. Although Stevens reasonably cautioned his colleagues
for overreaching by constraining future technology, the principle the
decision upheld is more important: No matter how much technology allows
for invasions of privacy, the Constitution bars it, and will continue
to.
Newshawk: Be a Newshawk - MapInc
