Read it here.
Justice Scalia in dissent: “To prevent and detect murder we do not allow searches without probable cause or targeted Terry stops without reasonable suspicion. We should not do so for drunken driving either. After today’s opinion all of us on the road, and not just drug dealers, are at risk of having our freedom of movement curtailed on suspicion of drunkenness, based upon a phone tip, true or false, of a single instance of careless driving. I respectfully dissent.“
If you want the longer version of the decision in Fernandez v. California (2014), click here.
Cases involving violent robbery suspects defending the Fourth Amendment lead to bad law. These bad rulings then apply to the innocent as well who wish to live peaceably without arbitrary police power being asserted against them.
It is impossible that I am the only person in the legal publishing field to have asked this question: How can we report on, analyze and otherwise make sense of the law for customers and news readers (not to mention the actual voting public as the stakeholders of democracy) when so much of the “law” grinds along beneath a veil of secrecy? Will Verizon and the government share their Big (Personal) Data with the rest of us?