Monday, January 23, 2012

Herding Katz

By Mike Dorf


No doubt many casual observers were stunned by the fact that today's Supreme Court decision in United States v. Jones, invalidating the month-long warrantless GPS tracking of a suspected drug trafficker's car, was unanimous.  But experts were not surprised.  As Professor Colb has observed in a series of columns (here, here and here) and blog posts (herehere and here), there were sound legal arguments for finding that such intrusive GPS monitoring violates the Fourth Amendment, notwithstanding precedents upholding less effective forms of warrantless monitoring.


I'll mostly leave to Professor Colb the task of explaining the Fourth Amendment aspects of the case in a future Verdict column and/or DOL post.  Here I want to focus on what, for me, was a truly important day in constitutional jurisprudence: the day Justice Alito declared that, at least so far as the Fourth Amendment is concerned, originalism is bunk.  (Props to U Texas Law Prof Mitch Berman for an article with the title "Originalism is Bunk").  So far as the underlying interpretive philosophy is concerned, Justice Alito's separate opinion critiquing Justice Scalia's "majority" opinion could have been written by Ronald Dworkin or the late Justice Brennan.  Really.


But first, some context.  The "majority" opinion of Justice Scalia held that the police placement of a GPS tracking device on Jones' car, and its subsequent month-long use of that device to track his every movement, amounted to a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment -- and thus required probable cause and a warrant -- because it invaded the property interest of Jones.  The crucial precedent for the "majority" was not any decision of the U.S. Supreme Court but the 1765 English ruling by Lord Camden in Entick v. Carrington, which supposedly established that a physical violation of property constitutes a search for which a warrant is required.  (Query how that could be true given that the defendants in Entick had a warrant, but we'll let that pass.)


By now you're probably wondering why I keep putting quotation marks around "majority."  The answer is that even though Justice Scalia's Opinion of the Court garnered five votes, one of those votes belonged to Justice Sotomayor, who wrote a concurrence that was closer in spirit to the position taken by Justice Alito (joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan).  The crucial divide was over how to understand the Court's 1967 decision in Katz v. United States.   The concurrence by Justice Harlan in that case has long been understood as rejecting Fourth Amendment formalism and historicism in favor of functionalism.  Whether police investigative activity amounts to a "search" requiring probable cause and a warrant, Harlan said in Katz, depends on whether that activity invades a "reasonable expectation of privacy."  Although property interests can be relevant to such expectations of privacy, they are neither necessary nor sufficient.  So say the later cases that adopted the Harlan reasoning from Katz, and so says Justice Alito.


Not so, said Justice Scalia.  Katz involved a case in which there was no property interest and the Court allowed that even absent the invasion of a property interest, police activity could constitute a "search" if it violates a reasonable expectation of privacy.  But, Justice Scalia said, Katz did not dispense with the proposition that police violations of property interests do, ipso facto, amount to Fourth Amendment searches.


From a certain perspective, Justice Scalia's opinion could be said to be more liberal than Justice Alito's.  After all, Justice Scalia could be saying that everything that violates a reasonable expectation of privacy under Katz is a search plus everything that intrudes on a property interest is also a search.  And Justice Sotomayor appeared to read Justice Scalia's opinion that way.  So if one is counting votes, then the case could be read to establish a kind of Katz+property rule.


I don't think that's what Justice Scalia meant, however.  I read his opinion as more interested in narrowing the domain of Katz.  I could be wrong on this point, but it's telling that Justice Alito reads Justice Scalia as making the case turn on when the police attached the GPS to Jones's car--a fact that is relevant under the property approach but not under the Katz approach--and Justice Scalia didn't really contradict Justice Alito on this point.


But I digress.  My core point is that Justice Alito goes to town on Justice Scalia for seeking guidance in the original understanding when the original understanding appears manifestly not up to the task.  Justice Alito says that
it is almost impossible to think of late-18th-century situations that are analogous to what took place in this case. (Is it possible to imagine a case in which a constable secreted himself somewhere in a coach and remained there for a period of time in order to monitor the movements of the coach’s owner?)
Justice Scalia responds that, actually, the hypothetical constable is a pretty good analogy.  That in turn leads to the best footnote I have read in a long time.  Justice Alito writes:
The Court suggests that something like this might have occurred in 1791, but this would have required either a gigantic coach, a very tiny constable, or both—not to mention a constable with incredible fortitude and patience.
Kudos to Justice Alito.  Of course, his Jones concurrence in the judgment is officially only a takedown of originalism in Fourth Amendment cases.  Justice Alito is not a thoroughgoing opponent of the use of original understanding in constitutional law.  But then, just about nobody is.  Nearly everybody thinks that original understanding is usually an important starting point.  Justice Alito showed today that he may not give original understanding much more weight than that.






P.S.  I'm well aware that there are versions of "new originalism" that could give the Fourth Amendment its "original semantic meaning" and still come to the view espoused by Justice Alito in the Jones case.  These are respectable academic versions of originalism but they're not what the public imagines when they hear the term "originalism."  Here I'm referring to the colloquial version of originalism.

17 comments:

Joe said...

Alito showed this side of himself before -- the "Scalia is curious what Madison thinks of video games" quip during that video games case comes to mind.

Doug said...

Definitely not a seizure and it wasn't - in the ordinary sense of the word - a search. It was monitoring. The constitution doesn't protect against that. If you want it to protect against privacy then amend the constitution.

Joe said...

Not sure how attaching things to your property and using it for the government's purposes without your permission is "definitely" not a "seizure" and if this is not a "search," why is it different from electronic eavesdropping?

If you want to diminish the protections of privacy already there, amend the Constitution.

Doug said...

Is electronic evesdropping a "search" (of what?) or a seizure (again, of what?)

Looking through records on a computer (i.e. stored communications) is definitely a search (the government is looking at physical bits that represent information - in the same was as a search of paper files) and should be unconstitutional absent a warrant. Electronic eavesdropping - monitoring - is not a search.

The constitution isn't broad enough which isn't surprising as it was written hundreds of years ago. Instead of bending it all out of shape it should be interpreted narrowly and if you want more protections they should be added.

Sam Rickless said...

A couple of thoughts.

1. Entick could stand for the proposition that physical intrusion can constitute a search, even if Entick involved use of a warrant. it would be an example of a search with a warrant, as opposed to a search without a warrant.

2. I don't think that Scalia says that police violations of property interests are ipso facto 4A searches. I think he says that police violations of property interests *that aim at the acquisition of information* (about the victim of the violation, or someone related to the victim of the violation?) are 4A searches. If a tiny police officer hides himself without my permission in my carriage when it is parked in my barn just for fun, that's not clearly a search. But if he hides himself without my permission in the same carriage *in order to overhear what is said in the carriage*, then that is a search.

3. I'm really not sure why you think that Alito's "tiny constable or very large coach" footnote quip gets anywhere. Imagine that in 1791, a police constable breaks into my house and hides in one of my closets in the hope of overhearing information about me. The constable doesn't need to be tiny and the house doesn't need to be all that big for the analogy to work. I take Scalia's point to be that such a physical intrusion on my property without my permission with the aim of acquiring information constitutes a 4A search. I don't see why this is problematic. Nor do I see why it is particularly originalist. A number of past Supreme Court cases have suggested that at least one of the purposes of 4A is to protect property (possessory) interests. One thinks, e.g., of the seizure of luggage in U.S. v. Place. Admittedly, there was no seizure in U.S. v. Jones, but there are different ways of violating property rights. Seizure of property is one way, affixing a device to property is another.

love game said...

I do not consider that Scalia says that law enforcement Sell Rs Goldviolations of home interests are ipso facto 4A searches. I consider he says that law enforcement violations of home interests *that purpose in the acquisition of information* (about the victim faraway from your violation, or anyone linked for the victim faraway from your violation?) are 4A searches. If a small law enforcement officer hides himself without acquiring my permission in my carriage when it is planning to quite possibly be parked in my barn just for fun, that is not obviously a search. but when he hides himself without acquiring my permission within precise same carriage *in purchase to overhear what precisely Buy Cheapest WOW Goldis described within carriage*, then which happens to be essentially a search.

toryburchshoesgoods said...

Looking through records on a computer (i.e. stored communications) is definitely a search (the government is looking at physical bits that represent information - in the same was as a search of paper files) and should be unconstitutional absent a warrant. Electronic eavesdropping - monitoring - is not a search. buywindows7keys.com
Windows 7 professional product Key
Windows 7 ultimate activation Key

Flickr Explorer said...

It is critical to established ambitions, the two long lasting along with short-term. Will not proceed crazy, collection realistic objectives. Once you accomplish one, combination rid of it the list and make up a brand new one. Taking this particular, 'little ways to be able to good results,' strategy, provide you with feeling of outcome and take great pride in.windows 7 ultimate 64 bit buy office 2010 product key windows xp home key

Chogavl Hong said...

If vacations retract available people love starting a merry energy by way of design. Plants, forward turf, motors... take your dog collar pick the ones might leap along at the possibility add accessories nearly anything along with in season decor. Resource great range of holiday getaway collars for dogs right now being made also you can dress up your puppy dog along with amazing not to mention entertaining training collars that happens to be manufactured for distinct excursions which includes Yuletide, Easter, Halloween night, St. Patrick's Day of the week as well as dog carrier Romantic days celebration.

ugg said...

Alito showed this side of himself before -- the "Scalia is curious what Madison thinks of video games" quip during that video games case comes to mind.Launch x431,launch x431 scanner,launch x431 gds

ugg said...

Definitely not a seizure and it wasn't - in the ordinary sense of the word - a search. It was monitoring. The constitution doesn't protect against that. If you want it to protect against privacy then amend the constitution.Launch x431,launch x431 scanner,launch x431 gds

Aura Valensia said...

Things are very open and intensely clear explanation of issues. was truly information. Your website is very beneficial.
kosmetik online frutablend kaminomoto harga glutera serum korea serum gold produk kecantikan

Admin said...

I would also motivate just about every person to save this web page for any favorite assistance to assist posted the appearance. serum rambut sandal lucu Crystal X Batu Mulia Pembesar Payudara frutablend kaminomoto
kitchen set murah terapi anak obat herbal

jimmy wilson said...

your post is not only interesting but informative too!!
Jimmy Wilson

Sutopo Sasuke said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sutopo Sasuke said...

thanks your share information..
nice post.
obat pembesar penis | obat pembesar penis alami| obat pembesar alat vital | homestay di jogja | guest house di jogja

Obat Pembesar Penis said...

mantap obat pembesar alat vital pria | pembesar penis