Disclosed in the data retrieved from the transmitting unit, nearly instantaneously with the press of a button on the highly portable receiving unit, will be trips the indisputably private nature of which takes little imagination to conjure: trips to the psychiatrist, the plastic surgeon, the abortion clinic, the AIDS treatment center, the strip club, the criminal defense attorney, the by-the-hour motel, the union meeting, the mosque, synagogue or church, the gay bar and on and on.
-- People v. Weaver
This essay is an interesting analysis of the NY Court of Appeals ruling that "held that before attaching a GPS device to a suspect's car and continuously monitoring the car's whereabouts for 65 days, the police should have obtained a search warrant." This ruling (joining a few others elsewhere with mixed results) provides a useful guidepost for addressing such modern surveillance techniques and has some clear parallels in respect to other types of high tech monitoring.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court expanded its recent clear line rule in confrontation cases to disallow "certificates of state laboratory analysts stating that material seized by police and connected to petitioner was cocaine of a certain quantity" to be admitted without an opportunity of cross examination. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion, Breyer joining Kennedy's dissent for a different sort of 5-4 ruling. As TalkLeft notes, this right can be particularly useful in various cases, and its usefulness one might add helps defendants in other ways.
I have discussed the strip search case elsewhere (and birthday girl Sotomayor's own views*). So, I will not directly repost the information again. Overall, the opinion (by Souter) is fairly well written (if less protective as some coverage will suggest), straightforward enough for a non-lawyer school official (or student) to understand. Also, the girl (now woman) comes off as not some angel, but a normal teenager. Finally, there is some value for the Supreme Court to set some limits in the school context, even if Thomas disagrees.
[As an aside, empathy is not necessary to decide the matter, perhaps, but it surely helps. See my discussion here with emphasis on animals.]
Finally, the most divisive ruling -- Breyer read his dissent from the bench -- is one that will get less attention. In fact, fwiw, I myself was not aware of it until now. It involved "whether the Arizona school district has taken 'appropriate action' to overcome learning barriers for English Language Learner students" per a federal law. Breyer appeared to be most upset that the majority did not give more discretion to the lower courts. The case was previewed here.
A few cases are left, including two of the more controversial ones. It would not surprise me if Souter writes a dissent in at least one of them.
---
* A Congressional Research Service report of Sotomayor's rulings brought to light one where she joined an opinion upholding a Vermont students' right to wear this t-shirt:
The T-shirt, through an amalgam of images and text, criticizes the President as a chicken-hawk president and accuses him of being a former alcohol and cocaine abuser. To make its point, the shirt displays images of drugs and alcohol.
H/t Secrecy News, which highlights this portion:
Perhaps the most consistent characteristic of Judge Sotomayor's approach as an appellate judge has been an adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis, i.e., the upholding of past judicial precedents.
But, don't worry -- some will continue to call her "activist."