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.
Reason's Annual Webathon is underway! Donate today to see your name here.
Reason is supported by:
No, but that's not stopping a litigious vegan from making his case.
Elizabeth Warren Would Rather Make You Fix Your Terrible Public School Than Let You Send Your Kid to a Charter School
"You don't like the building? You think it's old and decaying? Then get out there and push to get a new one," she said.
This is why we can't have serious conversations about government spending.