- 09-19-2014, 01:17 PM #1
Cell phone tracking has become a major concern for the public and policy makers in the US. Recently two cases brought up in the Supreme Court posed a valuable question about how much authority does the police officials have when it comes to tracking cell phones in order to follow suspects. The court has passed ruling on a 2012 case related to GPS tracking
of suspects and 2014 case related to searches using peoples cell phone records. The entire scene has caused confusion which needs to be clarified.
Taking a look at the 2012 case, when the police had mounted a GPS system on a car which allegedly belonged to a drug dealer, it was decided that the police had violated the protection given by the Fourth Amendment regarding unreasonable search and seizures by the Court with a majority of 9-0. The use of the warrant that was initially obtained by the police to use the GPS tracker expired but GPS was installed anyway. Even though the Court found the act illegal, government defended
by saying there was no need of a warrant in the first place.
Jones, who is known to have taken the decision to mount the GPS, had personally decided to obtain a warrant but disagreement within the camp regarding the warrant left the decision uncertain. But lets take a look at the opinions that rose as a result of Jones decision.
First up, the decision of the court speaks for itself when it was determined by all nine justices that the
use of GPS without obtaining a warrant was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. But a few rationales were considered on which their decision was based.
First rationale being, around five Justices were of the opinion that the act was an open violation of the
Fourth Amendment and the police had physically trespassed the law. But they were not clear about the point whether acquiring information of a similar nature from the electronic mediums, omitting physical trespass,would be considered unconstitutional or illegal.
The second opinion would have to be Justice Alitos. He expressed that an unlimited quantum of the same data is available online and through electronic medium in todays age which can be easily used, so depending on the Fourth Amendment would be unrealistic. He had confidence of three other Justices on the matter. Read more: Supreme Court rules over Cellphone Tracking
› See More: Rules of Supreme Court about Cellphone spy apps.TheOneSpy - Spy Software For Cell Phone | Android Spy Software | iPhone Spy Software | Blackberry Spy Software
- 09-19-2014, 09:07 PM #2Junior Member
- Posts
- 12 - liked 1 times
Re: Rules of Supreme Court about Cellphone spy apps.
Spy apps are comman these days most of the people use them to spy on there Gf
- 09-20-2014, 10:03 AM #3
Re: Rules of Supreme Court about Cellphone spy apps.
Yes you're very true about your statement. you can monitor your kid, employee and spouse too, through cellphonespyapps in a very secure way. basically security compensation is necessary in all this scenario. you can find all secure way to use this spy app in just one app, you can name it TheOneSpy App.. One ultimate solution of all mentioned problems.
Last edited by Brookechloe; 09-20-2014 at 05:22 PM. Reason: Confessor Visitor
TheOneSpy - Spy Software For Cell Phone | Android Spy Software | iPhone Spy Software | Blackberry Spy Software
Phones Discussed Above
More ZTE Supreme topics | Other Phone Reviews Forum | Reviews | ||
More LG Quantum topics | LG Forum | Reviews |
Similar Threads
- Chit Chat
- Chit Chat
- General Cell Phone Forum
- Samsung
- alt.cellular.verizon
Selling Himalayan Pink Salt Tiles and Bricks
in For Sale/Wanted