Warrant Required for GPS Tracking, Court Rules

The next time the police think about slapping a GPS tracking device on your car, they may be required to have a search warrant in their hands beforehand. In an opinion issued Friday, a D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals determined that unwarranted and prolonged GPS surveillance violates constitutionally mandated protections against unreasonable searches.
Federal prosecutors used evidence from GPS tracking devices to convict two D.C.-area nightclub owners, Antoine Jones and Lawrence Maynard, on narcotics charges. The government had argued that the suspects should never have had a reasonable expectation of privacy, since the GPS technology only tracked actions that the men committed in public. The three judge panel, however, saw things differently. "Society recognizes Jones's expectation of privacy in his movements over the course of a month as reasonable, and the use of the GPS device to monitor those movements defeated that reasonable expectation," the court wrote.
Arthur Spitzer of the D.C. ACLU, on the other hand, was effusive in his praise of the court. "This case is really a big step toward bringing the Fourth Amendment into the 21st century," Spitzer says. "The technology of the 21st century needs to be judged on its own terms, and not in terms of what some early 20th-century technologies meant."
The Appeals Court's ruling may set an important precedent, but, as Ars Technica points out, legislation on GPS surveillance still varies across states. A Wisconsin court, for example, ruled in 2009 that warrantless GPS tracking didn't violate the Constitution, while a New York Court of Appeals decided otherwise. All signs are thus pointing to a showdown at the feet of the Supreme Court, which, as the Washington Post notes, hasn't ruled on a similar electronic surveillance case since 1983, during the age of beepers.
In that decision, the high court determined that unwarranted surveillance facilitated by beeper-like tracking devices was legal, since the targeted suspect drove on public roads, and thus had no expectation of privacy. In that particular case, though, the suspect was under watch for the duration of a single, one-way trip, and the Court never weighed in on the legality of longer monitoring. [From: Washington Post and ars technica]





Whitney Houston Autopsy: Cause of Death Determined?
Whitney Houston, Bobbi Kristina: Late Singer's Daughter Hospitalized
Adele Five-Year Break? Singer Plans to Focus on Relationship, Write 'Happy Record'
Jennifer Hudson Whitney Tribute: Grammy President Reveals Why Singer Was Chosen for Musical Memorial
Grammy 2012 Winners' List: Adele Sweeps Music's Biggest Night
3 Economic Misconceptions That Need to Die
5-Hour Energy: A Success Equal Parts Caffeine, Chemistry and Meditation
People With Easy-To-Pronounce Names More Likely To Succeed, Study Says
Katy Perry Grammy Performance 2012: Did the Diva Diss Her Ex-Hubby With Revealing New Song?
Trace Adkins Reunites With College Crush, 30 Years Later














Comments
1
Subscribe to commentsvendelaveeAug 9th 2010 10:24AM
GREAT! The government is more and more trying to spy on, track, eavesdrop, wiretap, etc. citizens as technology advances. It is constantly encroaching on our privacy and freedoms. It good to see the courts slap back this Bush Era Orwellian attack on our Constitutional right to privacy. The Government has no right to electronically monitor our movements on a daily basis without oversight and approval. What's next Microchipping all U.S. Citizens?