Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

How a Bank Robbery Became a Fourth Amendment Landmark (Patreon)

Published:
2026-08-03 06:53:00
Edited:
2026-08-03 09:14:21
Imported:

Downloads

Content

OA1284 (EARLY FOR PATRONS!) - Can a modern court implement modern solutions? It really depends on your perspective. Despite some baffling misconceptions about how… anything works, the Justices seem to be doing a pretty good job of ultimately deciding that yes, police do in fact need a warrant to deeply invade your digital privacy. While Kavanaugh appears to have the entire concept of data storage and search queries upside down and backwards, Gorsuch asks complex questions about metadata versus true content, how data is stored in individual accounts, and what other types of data would be exposed if police were allowed to search your location information without a warrant… and yet they both ultimately vote to protect your privacy. It’s a weird world out there folks.

Cases discussed:

United States v. Jones

Carpenter v. United States

Chatrie v. United States

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Files

Comments

El dia del pan

How does the law/precedent compare between law enforcement seeking access to your information held by a corporate 3rd party (email provider, phone company) vs a government agency, say USPS (whether the content of mail itself, or contents of a PO box)? On one hand, I would assume the courts would demand higher protections when USPS is involved as they're part of the government... on the other hand I would hope that same high standard applies no matter who the 3rd party is.

Jenessa Seymour

Gorsuch actually used USPS as an example in oral arguments. You hand them letters, and they are the government. We understand that they know we mailed the letter, who we mailed it to, when we mailed it. He analogizes this to metadata, and the general rule that that’s not considered your personal private information. It’s given to a third party and almost necessarily not confidential because the third party needs it in order to deliver the data. But the contents of the letter in the envelope, that’s private. Even though you handed it to a government official. You did not give them permission to open it. That would be a crime. He uses this analogy to distinguish metadata from content, and how the location data in Google’s timeline feature is itself content, not metadata about the content. It’s the entire point of the feature, stored behind security. I’m not kidding when I say he understands the technology better than anyone else on that bench, probably better than most people in general. Idk if it’s a special interest for him, or if he just read the amicus briefs and put in the effort to really understand it, consulted with someone, who knows. But it’s a critical distinction and he nailed it and verbalized it for the other justices