Stephen Treglia, legal counsel at Absolute Software Corporation, reviews case law on tracking publicly moving objects, from the U.S. Supreme Court's 1983 holding allowing evidence of drug production found by following the signal of a beeper installed in a five-gallon drum of chloroform, through U.S. v. Maynard , which the Supreme Court will hear this coming term, where the D.C. Circuit found 28 uninterrupted days of GPS monitoring of a defendant's movements violated his rights.
August 30, 2011 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
When did people in this country develop a reasonable expectation of privacy over what they do in public? Until recently, at least, such a right did not exist.
No better pronouncement of this legal precept can be found than this seemingly all-encompassing quote from a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision, when it baldly stated, “[w]hat a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not subject to Fourth Amendment protection.”1 Not much evidence of equivocation there.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The New York Law Journal honors attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession in New York.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Truly exceptional Bergen County New Jersey Law Firm is growing and seeks strong plaintiff's personal injury Attorney with 5-7 years plaintif...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
