Email

The Idaho Court of Appeals, the second highest court in Idaho, determined on Friday, November 5th that no warrant is necessary if police want to use GPS vehicle tracking systems to monitor drivers. The court’s decision was the product of Idaho vs. Danney, in which the defendent, Filip Danney, was convicted on marijuana possession charges due to evidence from the GPS vehicle tracking device Ada County Detective Matt Taddicken placed on Danney’s automobile.

When the GPS tracking device later showed activity from Danney’s automobile which Taddicken found suspicious, Ada County Sherrif’s Office Deputy Matthew Clifford stopped Danney on a traffic violation. A search of his car found marijuana in Danney’s possession, for which he was arrested.

Danney contested the charges brought about by, arguing that Taddicken did not have “probable cause” to place the GPS tracking device in the first place. Without probable cause, the defense argued, the GPS evidence was invalid.

Defining Plain Violations

The decision was based on a prior court decision, made in July by the Idaho court, which stated that the violation must “plainly exist” in order to be considered a constitutional violation. According to that standard, Danney’s argument that his Constitutional rights were violated does not stand.

In Idaho, as a result of the precedence set by this court decision, there must be “plain violation” of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution if law enforcement agencies are to be called into question for using GPS evidence against suspects. In this case, the appellate court found no plain violation from Taddicken and the Ada County Sherrif’s Office.

Judge Sergio A. Gutierrez disagreed with the decision, writing in his dissent that Detective Taddicken did not satisfactorily explain why he believed that Danney’s car trip to a California city was enough evidence to believe that he was violating the law. “As Danney points out, there was no evidence presented that it was Danney who drove the truck to California, nor that the driver had frequented a known drug location in Arcata or the surrounding area,” Gutierrez wrote in his dissenting opinion.

Some who disagree with the law claim that this will set an unfavorable precedent, allowing police to encroach upon civil liberties. As GPS tracking technology is still a fast-growing industry, courts are still developing common law through court precedence with regards to GPS technology and its use in courts as evidence.

Article Written by Greg Minton