High court to rule on TV indecency, GPS tracking

Jun 28, 2011 By MARK SHERMAN , Associated Press

(AP) -- The Supreme Court has added a couple of high-profile constitutional challenges to its lineup of cases for next term: One looking at governmental regulation of television content and the other dealing with the authority of police to use a GPS device to track a suspect's movements without a warrant.

The court's action Monday agreeing to review the two cases foreshadows what could be an extraordinary year for the justices. Gay marriage, immigration and the health care overhaul all are working their way to the and could arrive in the term that begins on the first Monday in October.

The court's look at what broadcasters can put on the airwaves when young children may be could be the most important treatment of the issue in more than 30 years.

The justices said they will review rulings that threw out the Federal Communications Commission's rules against the isolated use of expletives as well as fines against broadcasters who showed a woman's nude buttocks on a 2003 episode of ABC's "NYPD Blue."

The Obama administration objected that the appeals court stripped the FCC of its ability to police the airwaves.

The U.S. television networks argue that the policy is outdated, applying only to broadcast television and leaving unregulated the same content if transmitted on cable TV or over the Internet. "Responsible programming decisions by network and local station executives, coupled with program blocking technologies like the V-chip and proper guidance of children by parents and caregivers, are far preferable to government regulation of program content," the National Association of Broadcasters said.

Parents Television Council president Tim Winter called on the court to uphold the FCC policy, saying that to do otherwise "would open the floodgates for graphic nudity" on television.

In a landmark 1978 decision, the court upheld the FCC's authority to regulate both radio and television content, at least during the hours when children are likely to be watching or listening. That period includes the prime-time hours before 10 p.m.

The "NYPD Blue" episode led to fines only for stations in the Central and Mountain time zones, where the show aired at 9 p.m., a more child-friendly hour than the show's 10 p.m. time slot in the East. The administration included a DVD of the episode with its filing.

The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York noted that ABC said the scene was intended to portray the awkwardness between a child and his parent's new romantic partner, and the difficulty of adjusting to the situation.

A second part of the FCC case involves the use of curse words on awards shows on television, which has been to the high court before.

Three years ago, the justices narrowly upheld the policy, but in a ruling that pointedly avoided dealing with First Amendment issues. Instead, the court directed the appeals court to undertake a constitutional review.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor is not taking part in the case because she served on the appeals court during its consideration of some of the issues involved.

But Justice Samuel Alito, who sold his Walt Disney Co. stock last year, will participate. Disney owns ABC.

Alito recently acknowledged he should not have taken part in the "fleeting expletives" case that the court decided in 2009.

In the GPS case, the court will decide whether the police need a warrant before using the device to track a suspect's movements.

The justices agreed to hear the Obama administration's appeal of a court ruling that favored a criminal defendant. The federal appeals court in Washington overturned a criminal conviction because the police had no warrant for the they secretly installed on a man's car.

Other appeals courts have ruled that search warrants aren't necessary for GPS tracking.

The Justice Department argued that warrantless use of GPS devices does not violate the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches. It also said prompt resolution of the divergent court opinions is critically important to law enforcement.

A three-judge panel of Democratic and Republican appointees unanimously threw out the conviction and life sentence of Antoine Jones of Washington, D.C., a nightclub owner convicted of operating a cocaine distribution ring.

Police put the GPS device on Jones' Jeep and tracked his movements for a month. The judges said the prolonged surveillance was a factor in their decision.

The high court directed both sides to address whether a warrant or consent is needed, regardless of how long the surveillance might last.

The government has argued that using a GPS device is no different from a beeper authorities used, with the high court's blessing in 1983, to help track a suspect to his drug lab. The court said then that people on public roads have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Justice Department said GPS devices are especially useful in early stages of an investigation, when they can eliminate the use of time-consuming stakeouts as officers seek to gather evidence.

Four other appellate judges in Washington said the entire appeals court should have heard the case, faulting their colleagues for the ruling in favor of Jones.

In another case, from California, a three-judge panel in San Francisco upheld the use of a GPS device without a warrant, saying it was no different from having officers tail a suspect.

That decision provoked a blistering dissent from Judge Alex Kozinski, who said the court handed "the government the power to track the movements of every one of us, every day of our lives."

Explore further: FX says overnight ratings becoming meaningless

not rated yet
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Government appeals ruling on FCC indecency rule

Aug 26, 2010

(AP) -- Federal regulators are appealing a recent court decision that struck down a 2004 government policy that says broadcasters can be fined for allowing even a single curse word on live television.

Court Denies Vonage Bid for Patent Case Retrial

May 04, 2007

A U.S. appeals court denies a request by Internet phone company Vonage Holdings that it order a retrial in the patent infringement case brought against it by Verizon Communications.

Discovery of GPS tracker becomes privacy issue

Oct 17, 2010

(AP) -- Yasir Afifi, a 20-year-old computer salesman and community college student, took his car in for an oil change earlier this month and his mechanic spotted an odd wire hanging from the undercarriage.

Court won't stop hormone replacement lawsuits

Oct 12, 2010

(AP) -- The Supreme Court won't reconsider a decision to reinstate more than 100 lawsuits filed by women who claimed that hormone replacement therapy caused breast cancer.

Recommended for you

Hoverbike drone project for air transport takes off

10 hours ago

What happens when you cross a helicopter with a motorbike? The crew at Malloy Aeronautics has been focused on a viable answer and has launched a crowdfunding campaign to support its Hoverbike project, "The ...

Study shows role of media in sharing life events

11 hours ago

To share is human. And the means to share personal news—good and bad—have exploded over the last decade, particularly social media and texting. But until now, all research about what is known as "social sharing," or the ...

User comments : 5

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rinardman
5 / 5 (1) Jun 28, 2011
If the police put a GPS tracker on someone's vehicle, and they find it and disable it, are they breaking any laws?
Would that be interfering with a police investigation?
SemiNerd
not rated yet Jun 28, 2011
If the police put a GPS tracker on someone's vehicle, and they find it and disable it, are they breaking any laws?
Would that be interfering with a police investigation?

If the police are tailing you, and you evade the tail, are you breaking any laws? No. All of the interpretations are relative to your expectation of privacy in public.
DoubleD
5 / 5 (2) Jun 28, 2011
Wouldn't the police putting the device on your vehicle be an invasion of privacy? Its my car, my property and nobody has my permission to touch it. Also, could it be called vandalism? Just seems wrong to me.
rinardman
not rated yet Jun 28, 2011
If the police are tailing you, and you evade the tail, are you breaking any laws? No. All of the interpretations are relative to your expectation of privacy in public.


My question deals more with the disabling of the device. If you find it, and disable it, is that the same as evading a tail?
Ramael
not rated yet Jun 30, 2011
My question deals more with the disabling of the device. If you find it, and disable it, is that the same as evading a tail?


You've already made that point. DoubleD raises another good one. Frankly I would consider it an invasion of privacy, police shouldn't be able to do anything on private property without a warrant. Our current system of law enforcement is already highly prone to abuse. Removing these checks just bring us one step closer to a police state.

Regardless of the law if I found one on my car I would tamper with it without hesitation.