Supreme Court says police can't use your cellphone to track you without a court order
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-says-police-can-t-use-your-phone-track-n873156
Supreme Court decides police generally need a warrant to track cell phones - CBS News
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-decides-police-generally-need-a-warrant-to-track-cell-phones/
High court Police need warrant to search cell phones - CNN
https://www.cnn.com/2014/06/25/justice/supreme-court-cell-phones/index.html
===
Questions for the Lawfags:
I ain't no Lawfag, but y'all might include a few. Sink yer legal eagle beaks into this:
Supreme Court says police can't use your cellphone to track you without a court order
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-says-police-can-t-use-your-phone-track-n873156
Supreme Court decides police generally need a warrant to track cell phones - CBS News
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-decides-police-generally-need-a-warrant-to-track-cell-phones/
High court Police need warrant to search cell phones - CNN
https://www.cnn.com/2014/06/25/justice/supreme-court-cell-phones/index.html
So: if da Po-leese needs a warrant fo' dat, Lawfags, does this mean that laws obliging compulsory Covid-19 tracking apps 'n' shit are unconstitutional?
Secon'ly, yo: if unconstitutional, do you have to wait fo' dat befo' y'all can challenge? Or can y'all go seek a declaratory order in advance to pre-empt?
Finally, law is theater, and so maybe even a pre-empt that just generates headlines – or a threat, in a noisy press release, that generates headlines,
without any follow-up actual filings (a loud public threat, IOW) has a strategic value?
Think on it, O Lawfags.