[JumpCrisscross]

> some pretty obvious and reasonable lines we could draw here

I agree. The problem is we have, on one hand, the police absolutists, and on the other hand, people who want to express their outrage more than do anything real. Neither bothers educating themselves on the legal merits of the other side’s. Both turn the Third Party Doctrine into a totem.

The Third Party Doctrine was created by Congress. Barring SCOTUS overturning half a century of law (again), that means the Congress must remake it. The lack of a popular alternative directly leads to the Doctrine’s persistence. We could draw these lines. But we don’t because we’re too busy expressing conniptions.

[AnthonyMouse]

The main purpose of constitutional protections is to bind Congress. Regardless of whether Congress is inclined to fix it, they couldn't really fix it anyway (short of a constitutional amendment), because otherwise the next time there is a crisis the Fighting Evil with Evil Act gets passed and undoes it.

[zerocrates]

The third-party doctrine was created by the courts, not Congress. US v. Miller and Smith v. Maryland are the typically-cited sources of it.

[beaeglebeached]

Is this the same Miller where the courts ruled in a case against an undefended dead guy that NFA, which now is amended to outlaw registry of new automatic weapons, was constitutional because it was just a revenue collection law and preserved right to military-type weapons?

[zerocrates]

No, different Miller. This one is from 1976.

[anamax]

A third Miller was involved in the free speech case, Miller v California in 1973, that resulted in the "Miller test" for obscenity which is pretty much the law today.