This is fucking frightening.
This is fucking 'as expected'. The Supremes tend to ask some deep questions and a bunch of retarded ones no matter what the subject matter is. Anyway, Roberts never comes across as terribly bright, so this might be more symptomatic than a specific weak spot.
I agree they need better information for cases where they're likely to have less personal experience. That's part of why they're often drowning in amicus briefs -- in theory, qualified expert authorities weigh in with (usually printed) opinions on the subject, hopefully with some background and clear, rational advocacy thrown in.
Personally, I should be more outraged in this instance, but I really hate texting and think this cop was pretty stupid. I know, the precedent is important, but just once I'd like to see expectation of privacy be reduced to WARNING you. (Maybe this happens, but I don't hear about it.) You know, the employer saying, 'Seriously, if you use your company computer to send a personal email on company time, then we can read it if we want.' Companies say that all the time, so shouldn't that affect your reasonable expectation of privacy?
If you're a cop, the notion that (A) the cops might snoop on you, and (B) activities leave a trail of evidence that can be discovered and used against you . . . . You know what? I'm not even going to finish that.
Just once, also, I'd like to see a ruling like this:
Employer's a dick. Defendant's a dick. Employer has slightly more responsibility than a private individual, so we fine the employer $5k, but the court would like to repeat that they're both dicks.
