I think the general take-away is that Scalia is skeptical of &quot;Big Goverment&quot; and state power. Scale ruled that police needed warrants to put tracking devices on vehicles: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;jalopnik.com&#x2F;antonin-scalia-the-tiny-constable-and-why-cops-need-w-1759071376" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;jalopnik.com&#x2F;antonin-scalia-the-tiny-constable-and-wh...</a><p>&quot;Lawyers for the government argued that Jones had no reasonable expectation of privacy out on public roads, and therefore affixing a GPS tracking device to someone’s car is not a “search” at all—a search would trigger protections under the Fourth Amendment...&quot;
  Scalia, who authored the court’s majority opinion, acted in a way that reflected his own strict interpretation of the constitution: in seeking to preserve the Framers’ supposed intent of the Fourth Amendment when it was created, Scalia wondered if the 18th century colonial equivalent of this case would be a “constable” hiding in a suspect’s vehicle.&quot;<p>Anywho, it is a pretty dumb move to gloss the opinions&#x2F;interpretations of Supreme Court Justices by a simple &quot;which side of the spectrum are they on?&quot; analysis. They are usually pretty sophisticated in those respects. You can&#x27;t just say &quot;Oh they are going to side with Law Enforcement&#x2F;The States&#x2F;The Federal Government&#x2F;The NRA&quot; etc.