Email

By Greg Bartlett

GPS tracking devices are becoming more and more common in the courtroom as proof in criminal cases. Recently the Massachusetts Supreme Court denied the appeal of Everett Connolly, who claimed that the police violated his privacy when they placed a tracking device on his vehicle in 2006.

GPS & Crime Prevention

The state of Massachusetts decided that the law enforcement officers were well within their rights to place the GPS tracking device on Connolly’s minivan, which was parked outside his apartment. The officers had a warrant, and they followed the procedure correctly and did not break privacy laws.

The court also decided that the police officers could have gone as far as breaking into the vehicle if it was necessary in order to place the tracking device, as long as they had a warrant. In order to protect the privacy of the individuals being tracked, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts placed a limit of 15 days on the GPS tracking warrant.

In Connolly’s case, this was enough time to convict him. After the tracking device was placed on his vehicle, he took a trip to New York. Police suspected this trip was to buy drugs and stopped his vehicle on a highway after he returned to Massachusetts. 124 grams of cocaine were found in the vehicle and Connolly was convicted in 2006.

Now that Connolly has lost his appeal that the law enforcement officers were acting illegally, he faces another 10 to 12 years in prison for trafficking and distributing cocaine.

The GPS tracking devices that law enforcement officers use to track suspected criminals are real time or active trackers. This enables them to watch the movements of their suspect and allows them to act more quickly. In this case, an active tracking device made it possible for the police officers to catch Connolly while the drugs were still in his vehicle, making it very easy to convict him.

State courts across the country are making their own ruling about GPS tracking systems and their use. Some states are making the warrant a necessary step in police procedure, but others, Wisconsin for instance, are not requiring a warrant in specific circumstances. In most states when a car is parked in an open space and the tracking is in a public place, police officers are free to put a tracking device on the vehicle.

State courts will continue to debate this topic to make sure that the Fourth Amendment, which protects against “unreasonable search and seizure”, is upheld and the citizens’ rights are protected.