Email

Warrantless GPS tracking has been a subject of much debate and controversy for a few years now. A case is being brought to the attention of the Delaware Supreme Court, which may help define the limits of electronic surveillance across the United States. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is requesting that the Supreme Court judges uphold a Superior Court ruling against warrantless tracking.

Michael D. Holden, a 28-year-old suspected drug dealer, was arrested after police found 10 pounds of marijuana in his vehicle. The problem is that the police made this arrest after illegally monitoring Holden for more than 20 days, with GPS technology. The drug evidence was tossed out by the Superior Court judge, ruling in Holden’s favor.

At the heart of this issue is the constitutional right to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Peter N. Letang, a defense attorney, weighed in on the issue. “It is tough to carve out an expectation of privacy when everyone wise knows where you are.” He is referring to the availability of GPS tracking information provided by smart phones and vehicles. Many corporations, such as Apple and Google, sell location information to advertising companies for a profit.

“They are selling information about your movement to advertisers,” explained Widener University associate professor Wesley Oliver. He goes on to ask, “And if Apple can use my movement to sell me gas, why can’t the government [use the information] to break up drug rings or find terrorists?”

Defense attorney Joseph A. Gabay offers a counterpoint. “The difference is it is the state in one case, and it is Google [a corporation] in the others. You can sue Google for invasion of privacy but there is no constitutional remedy.”

Superior Court Judge Jan R. Jurden heard the case against Holden, and sided with the defendant, throwing out the drug evidence obtained from warrantless GPS tracking. She explains, “The advance of technology will continue ad infinitum. . . An Orwellian state is now technologically feasible. WIthout adequate judicial preservation of privacy, there is nothing to protect our citizens from being tracked 24/7.”

Not surprisingly, the ACLU agrees with Jurden’s ruling. “This case is especially important because of its impact on the privacy rights of all Delawareans, including the vast majority who will never be charged with a crime,” stated Richard Morse, ACLU attorney, in court papers filed with the Delaware Supreme Court.

Article Written by Marisa O’Connor