Dec 042013
 December 4, 2013  Posted by  Surveillance, U.S.

Orin Kerr writes:

Thanks to Will’s excellent post below, I now think I was wrong before in my earlier approach to Maynard. My sense now is that the correct approach is to say that the Supreme Court didn’t reach the Maynard question of whether GPS tracking is a search under Katz. As a result, there is still a circuit split on the issue that Jones left unresolved. This means that Maynard is binding appellate precedent in the DC Circuit, and the cases on the other side of the split are binding in those other circuits.

Read more on The Volokh Conspiracy.  It’s interesting to see public discussions and back-and-forth analyses result in changes in thinking, and I am grateful when people allow us to spectate their discussions so we can all learn and think.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.