Last month the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that police generally need a warrant to obtain information about the locations of cellphone users. Last week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit said just the opposite. The first decision was based on Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution, while the second was based on the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But as Senior Editor Jacob Sullum notes, those provisions are virtually identical, banning "unreasonable searches and seizures" of "persons, houses, papers, and effects." The crucial difference between the two decisions, Sullum says, is the "third party doctrine," an increasingly alarming menace to privacy.
Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Manipulators Are More Likely To Engage in 'Virtuous Victim Signaling,' Says Study
Plus: Protesters sue over alleged mistreatment by arresting officers, a new ruling on robocalls, and more...
If you can’t count on schools to perform their core educational responsibilities, why wouldn’t you look elsewhere?
I was one of the 153 signers and am a veteran of the Twitter wars. But even I was taken aback by the swift, virulent response.
Homeland Security Acting Like 'An Occupying Army' Says Sen. Wyden, After Federal Agents Shoot Peaceful Portland Protester
Plus: free press threats, marriage licensing woes, Fiona Apple fights for prisoners, Trump spox talk up masks, and more...