Narrowly, privacy rights in relation to video surveillance and the claim to privacy in public settings.
Broadly speaking, and on a federal level, there is usually no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public setting. See Katz v United States. It is worth a read. But, of course, there are exceptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Suggesting the Griswold is easy to read is a bit of an overstatement. The argument is marital privacy, not even individual privacy, and the judgement seems to rely heavily on property rights and the protections of the 14th amendment as the basis, which makes it clear as mud. Now I do find this very interesting, and I hope you'll educate me here so I can have the appropriate conversation.
This is all very grey. Even your own statement, "The contours of that right, like the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution from which the Court found such a right, can be a bit hazy. The interplay between the right to privacy and criminal procedure, for example, where there is overlap but (as I recall) no explicit statement of such," admits there is no clear statement of such a right and that it is an interpretation applied broadly. An interpretation of the interplay between married partners and not a clear statement of privacy for the individual I might add. It seems this judgment is focused on what happens in the bedroom stays in the bedroom, even though the same judgement states "in no way interferes with a State's proper regulation of sexual promiscuity or misconduct." So you have the right to "privacy" in your own own "home" so long as the state can still regulate your behavior? Doesn't seem like a clear statement of "privacy" or an explicit statement that the constitution promotes or protects that right. Seems it is an interpretation of law based more on previous judgements than it does on a clear interpretation of the protections afforded by the constitution, as the judgement clearly states.
You have to also read the cases that followed Griswold and expanded its reach: Eisenstadt v. Baird and Lawrence v. Texas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
So if an individual is driving their car through an intersection and has their image captured by a traffic camera, what right to privacy do they have? If they are in a park with clear direction of no weapons, and observed to have a gun in their pack, what right to privacy to they have? If they send a dick pick to someone on their phone and it is viewed in a public space, what right to privacy do they have?
In order: Probably none; It depends on if the pack is see-through or not, who did the observing and how the observation was undertaken; and it depends on how it was viewed and who does the viewing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Thanks for the discussion on this issue. Very informative and shows just how complex the law is.
I honestly can’t tell if you are being serious or sarcastic, but regardless, I really don’t have it me to get into this issue. Providing legal advice was my day job before I got laid off and, quite truly, I’m just not feeling the urge to get back into doing that right now.
Even worse than just Trump being a fan is that his writing has been the narrative of the highest rated “news” show in America. What does that say about the populace? Those ways of thinking and those messages are obviously not unpopular.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following User Says Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
This is the type of undeniable racism that deluded Fox News viewers need to see to convince them of what they're really watching on that network. No dog-whistles or Easter eggs - just flat out racism.
Everything about that article is concerning, but the fact the forum he was posting to was targeted to lawyers and law students is... I don't even know what to say about that... horrifying.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) plans to hold training sessions for citizens to teach them how to arrest undocumented immigrants. To say that this program (dubbed the “Citizens Academy”) could lead to devastating consequences for immigrants is an understatement.
As reported by Newsweek, “A letter published online by The St. Louis Inter-Faith Committee on Latin America (IFCLA) appears to show ICE Chicago Field Office Director Robert Guadian inviting shareholders to participate in the course, which includes six days of training over a six-week period starting in September.” A copy of this letter can be found here.
According to Field Director Guadian, this program would be the first of its kind and would “serve as a pilot for nationwide implementation.” The planned courses would include “defensive tactics, firearms familiarization and targeted arrests.”
6 weeks starting in September. Should be done in time for the election
Even worse than just Trump being a fan is that his writing has been the narrative of the highest rated “news” show in America. What does that say about the populace? Those ways of thinking and those messages are obviously not unpopular.
The thing that I find troubling about this Blake Neff guy is the fact that he doesn't exactly seem overly qualified for his position. He's a young person brought in to steer the best rated cable news show of all time. It looks from the outside that the only quality that got him his position was his "world view." This isn't like finding out someone that works at fox has sex crime accusations, it's more like finding out that fox is recruiting based on sex crime prowess.
So Trump officially commuted Roger Stone's sentence. Nothing to see here folks.
Blatant corruption right out in the open for all to see, and of course the GOP has been completely silent as usual. Romney is the only one to speak out about this so far.
It sure seems like Trump is trying to burn as much s*** to the ground as he possibly can before November. We think he's bad now? Imagine what he'll do between November and January if he loses the election. We ain't seen nothin' yet.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to direwolf For This Useful Post:
Former special counsel Robert Mueller, in a very rare move, has written an op-ed for The Washington Post defending his office's prosecution of Roger Stone and saying he is still a convicted felon and "rightly so" in light of President Donald Trump's commutation of Stone.
"Congress also investigated and sought information from Stone. A jury later determined he lied repeatedly to members of Congress. He lied about the identity of his intermediary to WikiLeaks. He lied about the existence of written communications with his intermediary. He lied by denying he had communicated with the Trump campaign about the timing of WikiLeaks' releases. He in fact updated senior campaign officials repeatedly about WikiLeaks. And he tampered with a witness, imploring him to stonewall Congress," Mueller writes in the op-ed posted Saturday evening.
"The jury ultimately convicted Stone of obstruction of a congressional investigation, five counts of making false statements to Congress and tampering with a witness. Because his sentence has been commuted, he will not go to prison. But his conviction stands."
Quote:
Mueller also pointed out that the people involved in the investigations and prosecutions acted with the "highest integrity."
"We made every decision in Stone's case, as in all our cases, based solely on the facts and the law and in accordance with the rule of law. The women and men who conducted these investigations and prosecutions acted with the highest integrity. Claims to the contrary are false," Mueller wrote.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to direwolf For This Useful Post:
Yesterday, motivated by some comments I read on Twitter, I ended up reading about some of Mueller’s decisions around the impeachment investigation and subsequent report. From what I understand, Mueller could have done much more to ensure that Trump and his cronies would have faced punishments. Aside from trying to save face after being outplayed with the impeachment investigation, what is the point of Mueller writing an op-ed? Christ, he had his chance and didn’t take advantage of it.
Yesterday, motivated by some comments I read on Twitter, I ended up reading about some of Mueller’s decisions around the impeachment investigation and subsequent report. From what I understand, Mueller could have done much more to ensure that Trump and his cronies would have faced punishments. Aside from trying to save face after being outplayed with the impeachment investigation, what is the point of Mueller writing an op-ed? Christ, he had his chance and didn’t take advantage of it.
I’ll have to disagree...from memory. In the end, Mueller laid out that the president likely broke the law (and in a few instances definitely did with obstruction). What Mueller didn’t know is if he (or anyone) had the authority to charge the president with a crime in the first place and they didn’t think they had the evidence for a Strong criminal case against the Trump campaign When it came to Russian influence.
There was no exoneration of Trump or anyone else...it was there is a hell of a lot of smoke. We couldn’t find the fire to support criminal charges on Russia but we think the fire is there type of thing. The opinion at the time was the sitting president couldn’t be charged with a crime. He did the only thing he thought he could do...leave it in the hands of those that can make the president accountable. The senate failed in that job not Mueller. He led congress to impeachment without being able to say its name outright.
I wonder with the recent Supreme Court ruling where the justices were very forthright in saying the president is not above the law would have changed the decisions made on the presidents potential criminality.
I thought Mueller's hands were tied by Barr? I always assumed the full report was pretty damning, but was never released.
They were and there was outside legal counsel saying they weren’t sure you can charge a sitting president. Given the circumstances he did what he could I think.
Again the real failure is on the Senate and in particular the GOP.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ernie For This Useful Post:
They were and there was outside legal counsel saying they weren’t sure you can charge a sitting president. Given the circumstances he did what he could I think.
Again the real failure is on the Senate and in particular the GOP.
I don't understandhow anyone could say the blame rests with the Senate and that the Senate didn't do its job.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
Yesterday, motivated by some comments I read on Twitter, I ended up reading about some of Mueller’s decisions around the impeachment investigation and subsequent report. From what I understand, Mueller could have done much more to ensure that Trump and his cronies would have faced punishments. Aside from trying to save face after being outplayed with the impeachment investigation, what is the point of Mueller writing an op-ed? Christ, he had his chance and didn’t take advantage of it.
Mueller can't indict a sitting president. He gave Congress all the ammo they needed to remove the dips**t from office, and the GOP-controlled Senate failed to do so. End of story. Mueller's final report was indeed quite damning, and Barr essentially ignored all the juicy bits when he put out that ridiculous "nothing to see here" statement afterwards.
Mueller's comments on Wednesday echoed his report, which said, "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.
Quote:
The special counsel on Wednesday also said he was legally unable to charge the president with a crime — emphasizing it's against Justice Department policy — and that his report explained that decision.
"Under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional," Mueller said. "Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited."
Mueller added, "The special counsel's office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider."
