I have a unit in my office with a knob that I alone get to turn. Is that really so crazy that it doesn't even get a choice?
Most of the billable hours are for researching the background, old court cases etc. and are done by others in the law firm that are not affected by the lawyer's efficiency.
But... that's exactly what lawyers do. It's true moreso for associates than partners, but that's much of the practice right there.
If asked by a police officer (in the US) to account for my movements, my right to decline to answer is protected by the 5th amendment.
Only if it's going to incriminate you. Otherwise, they can haul you in front of a grand jury and force you to answer anything they want.
Requiring me to carry a tracking device that would automatically answer this question is tantamount to forcing me to verbally answer, and thus seems to also be a violation of my 5th amendment rights.
Except that's not how the court treats it. Look at Schmerber v. California, for example. They draw a clear line between testimonial evidence of the sort that would include forced verbal statements, and any sort of physical evidence, which likely includes tracking your movements. (In Schmerber, forcing him to give blood to test for alcohol % didn't violate his 5th amendment rights!)
How could this possibly be legitimized by tricking me into carrying a tracking device by slipping it into my pocket/bag/car? This doesn't impact the police's ability/right to physically follow me; I just shouldn't have to help them.
Actually, the fact that they'd be tricking you makes it even less likely that it'd be a 5th amendment violation. Anytime the police use deception or fraud, and you therefore don't know that you're dealing with the cops, it makes it even less likely there will be a 5th amendment violation. It's all about making sure that the coercive power of the state isn't used to break you down. If you do something voluntary and the police hear it / see it / track it - you're SOL.
RADIO SHACK LEVEL II BASIC READY >_