Talk:United States v. Jones (2012)

Jones III Trial results
I was going to put in the news report that his third trial deadlocked and went to mistrial --Patbahn (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Some Issues with the Opinion Section
I created and worked on this article some time ago and it's amazing to see how far it has some since then! However, I noticed a few issues with the opinion section. The first is that the conclusion contains what I believe to be original research. Specifically, "If for example a case came up where for 28 days the government continuously monitored a car's movement using the now common, factory installed GPS device, it is very likely that the Court would find that due to the long term GPS surveillance that occurred an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy had been violated". This seems to be a conjecture about how the court will rule is the future and it has no citation to back it up.

The second issue is that the concurring opinions are given the same heading as the majority opinion. Because the majority opinion is settled law and the concurring opinions are supplementary information, the concurring opinions are usually all put in one section.

Thoughts? If there are no objections to me correcting the above I will do so in a few days. -- Sailing to Byzantium  ( msg ),  17:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree on both. Change them now - be WP:BOLD! If someone has a problem with what you did they can modify/revert. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I like to be extra cautious on Supreme Court case articles, because they are by nature about unresolved questions with people on both sides. But you are right! Changes made. -- Sailing to Byzantium  ( msg ),  16:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the conjecture on future rulings should be restrained if not completely removed. I also disagree that the court would likely find a violation of privacy under those circumstances.  I would hope that they would, but the only opinion that really supports that is Sotomayor's concurring opinion, in which no other justices joined. Sterrettc (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

per se
Regarding this edit, would you like to suggest an alternative to linking to illegal per se? The current link points to per se, which is a disambiguation. Since such a link is not allowed per WP:DISAMBIG, I think we should consider choosing a different article to link to, or simply removing "per se" to avoid the ambiguity. Edge3 (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We could just remove the wikilink? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't removing the wikilink would be helpful, since readers who don't have a legal background might not know what per se means. Would a link to negligence per se be appropriate? Edge3 (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because the article has nothing to do with negligence. "Per se" isn't a legal term; it's a latin term. The most "correct" link would be to Per se (terminology). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I used the link you suggested. Edge3 (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

FDU PublicMind
Hello. Some comments were made in the GA review about my recent deletion of the FDU PublicMind paragraph. The material was added on March 6, 2012 by CrCorrea. It was a product of COI meatpuppetry self-promotional activity by the FDU public relations department. This came to light this past summer. One editor was blocked. CrCorrea was not because he/she had stopped editing WP in February. The full story is here, here.

This material may be appropriate for (re-)inclusion, but it deserves heightened scrutiny in light of the COI. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that explanation. Now that I see the context, I quite agree. – Quadell (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Reception information
As discussed at the GAN, I feel that the "Reception" section could include more information. Would any of these sources be appropriate to use? Volokh Conspiracy, EFF, Michigan Law Review, or these many summaries and reactions at Scotusblog? – Quadell (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Volokh Conspiracy (Kerr): No, this is a reflection on oral argument, not on the opinion.
 * EFF: Yes, definitely, the EFF is a major player in this area, and this would go toward balancing the government reactions. Reactions by the ACLU and the CDT may also be appropriate.
 * Michigan Law Review (Goldberg): Yes, notable, but probably not as notable as other academic commentary. See below.
 * Scotusblog - Goldstein 1: Certainly worth citing, but perhaps this factors more into the reliability of news sources referenced in other sections of our article. Not sure, I haven't given it a close review.
 * Scotusblog - Goldstein 2: Yes, notable.
 * Regarding the Michigan Law Review Goldberg article, we should certainly include some academic commentary, but Goldberg probably doesn't make the cut, as according to LexisNexis there are 303 law review articles citing Jones, and Goldberg isn't any more notable than the rest (and it's just a "first impression" article). If anyone wants to sink serious time into this project, I suggest using a Google Scholar search (such as this one) to find these articles, then look for the articles authored by people with WP articles. I understand this isn't a foolproof methodology but it's better than a one-by-one slog through each article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:United States v. Jones (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)