In 500... (or less)

No Question Unanswered

So much for getting away with it.

In a somewhat surprising 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that law enforcement can use time travel to assist in criminal investigations.

While the majority opinion acknowledged protections from certain types of illegal search and seizures, time travel is not considered an invasion of privacy.

"The ability to actually witness a crime, particularly violent ones that result in the death of another person, outweighs any claim that the deed was done in private quarters," wrote Justice Hannah Buckley. "The court was built upon the ideals of justice, and the use of such technology ensures every single criminal could be brought to justice."

Advocates of the decision had argued the use of time travel is a powerful deterrent.

"No criminal, no matter how careful or devious, will ever enjoy freedom from prosecution for their deeds," U.S. Attorney Gavin Thomas said. Thomas argued the case on behalf of the Department of Justice.

In the case before the court, defendants Raife York and Chris Fritz had argued that police improperly used time travel to witness the murder David Yancey. Yancey's body was discovered in his submerged vehicle in a flooded quarry more than a year after he went missing. Police argued they only used the technology to see what happened to Yancey.

York and Fritz encountered Yancey, a wealthy, off-the-grid recluse, took him back to residence to rob him, then eventually killed him, disposing of the body in Yancey's own vehicle.

The court's decision highlighted the idea that if the police were actually present at the scene as it happened, they surely would have entered Yancey's home under the principle of "hot pursuit", a well-established principle that allows police to enter private homes in pursuit of a suspected criminal without a warrant.

Timothy Regis, attorney for the defendants, expressed disappointment at the decision.

"It's a sad day for the Constitution and individual rights," he said. "In short, the police can enter any home at any time if they think a crime has happened there at any point."

"This isn't Big Brother, it's Omnipotent Brother," he added. "It puts far too much power in the hands of the police, and it surely will be abused."

The lone dissenting justice, Justice Brogan Thewlis, echoed those sentiments.

"The power to witness every moment, to know everything that can be known, is too great for man to bear," he wrote. "While the premise is that such a tool will only be used for good, mankind has proven without fail that it will inevitably be used for evil."

Jacob Pike, the inventor of time travel, could not be reached for comment. The use of time travel, which was not public knowledge at the time of the investigation into Yancey's murder, was offered by the inventor to the police.

"Society will never be the same," Harvard Law Professor Nemo Willingham said. "There is no longer such a thing as an 'unsolved crime'. If that doesn't make you think twice before doing something sinister, nothing will."