# Talk:United States v. Jones (2012)

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)

 Done

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)

This review is transcluded from Talk:United States v. Jones (2012)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 14:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: Sailing to Byzantium
This is a very strong candidate. I found a few issues, listed below.

There is an in-text external link at " Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)". Is that standard? I would expect external links to be in the end sections, and "United States v. Karo" is mentioned above without such a link.
I haven't seen this in similar articles that have GA status, so I'm removing the external link. I think it's unnecessary, anyway. If the readers want to know more on the case, they could click on the link to the WP article. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The "Reception" section gives a single sentence by the defense attorney regarding the importance of the case, followed by a paragraph about a poll taken before the decision, and commentary about the poll. Are there other notable opinions that should go in the "Reception" section? A quick Google search reveals statements about the case's importance from the New York Times, the Huffington Post, the Federation of American Scientists, the Michigan Law Review, the EFF, the ACLU, etc.
I added some extra information to the "Reception" section. Let me know if there are other points you would like me to mention. Edge3 (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
That's an excellent addition. This issue has now been resolved.  – Quadell (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The "See Also" section lists subsequent case law that relied on Jones for precedent: United States v. Graham and Florida v. Jardines, plus the proposed Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance Act. Should those be mentioned in the text, perhaps in the "Subsequent developments" section?
The "See Also" section also mentions the Kyllo and Oliver cases. Why these, in particular? Were they referenced in the justices' opinions? If not, what are the criteria by which we can tell which Fourth-Amendment cases should be included in the See Also section and which should not? (My own preference is to omit "See Also" sections except in those uncommon situations where an article is unquestionably relevant, but clearly should not be linked in the article body.)
I agree that the "See Also" section should be reserved for articles that are clearly relevant but not mentioned in the article itself. For Supreme Court cases in particular, I'm wary of turning the "See Also" section into a list of related cases, since the impact of a Supreme Court decision could affect so many subsequent cases. For this reason, I removed the "See Also" section, but was reverted by DrFleischman.
Interpreting WP:SEEALSO is a matter of editorial judgment, so it's not clear what to include or exclude. I personally don't think the Kyllo and Oliver cases should be in the "See Also" section, since they don't have a readily apparent connection to Jones. If those cases were cited in the Jones opinion, then they should be mentioned in the article body. Edge3 (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Kyllo and Jones are frequently cited together as the two leading technology/privacy cases, so I think Kyllo should stay. Oliver is certainly a notable case but I don't understand its connection to Jones, so I think it should go. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
When the "Notes" refer to pages of "United States v. Jones (Oral Argument Transcript)", the link takes them to the main reference under "References". This way the PDF is only linked once. But although the "Opinions" PDF is also linked in the "References" section, each note that refers to it links individually to the PDF (and there are many such notes). It seems to me that it would be better if these were done consistently, without the need for multiple links in the article to the same external PDF.
I switched all of the links to the citation in the "Notes" section. Edge3 (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm putting this review on hold while these are addressed. I look forward to your replies. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The nominator, Sailing to Byzantium, is inactive. As per a prior agreement with Quadell, I am willing to take over this nomination and make the requested changes. Of course, I would be happy to yield to Sailing to Byzantium if he/she returns. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Edge3. I'll leave this nomination open for another week, to give you a chance to make the necessary modifications. – Quadell (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


### The current situation
Improvements have been made to this already-strong article, but I have a few concerns remaining. I do wish a consistent standard for inclusion were implemented with regard to the "See also" list, but I concede that it's not currently an impediment to GA status. The removal of material from the "Reception" section, on the other hand, has left that section a little skimpy. For a reputed "landmark ruling", I'd feel more comfortable if a couple more sentences were added on notable reactions, whether related to the removed survey or not. (And I still think a couple of the "See also" entries would be better as mentions in a section like this.) Besides that issue, I think the article is ready.  – Quadell (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up: The "Reception" section still feels like it could include more. 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) 17:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but could you please re-post on the article talk page to widen the discussion to the larger community? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
With the most recent additions, I am satisfied that this article meets all the criteria for GA status. That's not to say that it can't be improved; further information in the "Reception" section would be welcome. But it is reasonably complete now, and I'm going to promote it.  – Quadell (talk) 13:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: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)#per se. --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)

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)

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)

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)