What Happened?
The Nevada Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday about a case that should worry anyone who values privacy. Reno Mayor Hillary Schieve and former Washoe County Commissioner Vaughn Hartung found GPS trackers secretly placed on their personal cars. They sued to find out who was behind it.
This case began in December 2022 when Schieve found a tracking device on her car. A mechanic spotted it while working on her vehicle during campaign season, just weeks before her re-election. The device had been on her car for several weeks. Hartung later joined the lawsuit after discovering a similar device on his vehicle that had been there for several months.
Private investigator David McNeely and his firm, 5 Alpha Industries, placed the trackers. The person who hired him (called “John Doe” in court) wants to stay anonymous. He claims revealing his name would harm his First Amendment right to engage in political activity privately.
The Constitutional Question Being Asked in the Hearing
The Nevada Supreme Court hearing on Tuesday centered on a critical constitutional question:
Does John Doe, who hired a private investigator to track elected officials, have a First Amendment right to remain anonymous?
The court is specifically considering Doe’s petition for a writ of prohibition after a district court judge rejected his request for a protective order to shield his identity.
At the heart of this dispute is the tension between two competing rights. Attorneys for Mayor Schieve and former Commissioner Hartung argued they need Doe’s name to properly conduct their case, stating they cannot depose, verify statements from, or cross-examine an anonymous person. They characterized Doe’s desire for privacy as hypocritical given his role in surveilling public officials.
During Tuesday’s hearing, Adam Hosmer-Henner, attorney for Schieve and Hartung argued:
“John Doe’s petition here combines both cowardice and hypocrisy by seeking to keep his own identity private without any regard for the privacy rights that he trampled,”
Doe’s attorney countered that revealing his client’s identity would violate his constitutional right to engage in anonymous political activity and could subject him to public retaliation. His legal team framed this as a fundamental First Amendment issue that transcends the specific circumstances of the GPS tracking.
Attorney Jeff Barr, representing John Doe, fired back:
“It’s entirely possible to do this. We don’t sacrifice constitutional liberties on the altar of political expediency.”
This hearing is particularly significant for conservatives because it tests the limits of government power to force disclosure of identity in political matters. The court’s ruling could establish whether citizens investigating potential government corruption have a protected right to anonymity, or whether public officials can use privacy claims to unmask their critics.
Why Should Conservatives Care?
Think about it this way: If private citizens can be forced to reveal their identities for political activities, what’s to stop government from doing the same to you?
Jason Smith, a constitutional lawyer not involved in the case, puts it simply:
“Conservatives have long believed that what happens in your private life should stay private, unless there’s a very good reason otherwise. This case tests that belief.”
According to a Pew Research Center survey, 79% of adults report being “very or somewhat concerned about how companies are using the data they collect about them,” while 64% express similar concerns about government data collection.
These privacy worries cross political lines and are especially strong among conservatives who value limited government. This case hits a nerve at a time when many feel like privacy is under attack.
The Bigger Picture
The heart of this case is about balancing two important rights: privacy and free speech.
On one side, elected officials deserve some basic privacy in their personal lives. On the other side, citizens have the right to gather information about public officials and to do so without revealing who they are.
An important fact: when McNeely placed these trackers in 2022, it wasn’t even illegal in Nevada. The state had to pass a new law (Assembly Bill 356) that went into effect July 1, 2023, making such tracking devices illegal. This raises a key question for conservatives: should someone be punished for an action that wasn’t against the law when they did it?
What Happens Next?
The Nevada Supreme Court will now deliberate on this case. Their decision could set an important precedent for privacy cases nationwide and have serious implications for anonymous political activity.
This isn’t the first time the court has weighed in on this case. Less than a year ago, all seven justices rejected a previous appeal to keep the client’s name confidential. However, now they’re considering the broader constitutional questions at stake. The final ruling will likely come by fall 2025.
If the court sides with John Doe, it will protect the right of citizens to anonymously investigate elected officials. If the court sides with the elected officials, it could create a precedent allowing politicians to unmask their critics through lawsuits.
Remember that today’s ruling on someone else’s privacy could affect yours tomorrow. As Ronald Reagan once said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”
This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
