Email

Americans are protected from unreasonable search and seizure by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. New technology requires that the courts reevaluate modern applications of that amendment. One possible issue is the use of GPS tracking by law enforcement officials. On some occasions, police or other law enforcement departments have used GPS transmitters to locate and track persons of interest. This use of GPS tracking has become the subject of controversial court decisions.

This controversial practice relies on the use of a transmitter that sends a signal, allowing law enforcement to track the transmitter’s location using global positioning satellites. Law enforcement uses similar technology to track the location of sex offenders by using an ankle bracelet to hold the transmitter. Sex offenders know they’re being tracked for the safety of the public, but vehicle tracking is often done without the suspect’s knowledge, making it controversial.

On one hand, state courts have usually been ruling that such tracking with GPS transmitters is illegal. Because the tracking is done without the knowledge of the person of interest, it can be considered to be unreasonable search and seizure.

On the other hand, most federal courts have ruled that using GPS tracking is legal and does not violate the Fourth Amendment. However, in a case in DC, the federal court ruled that long-term tracking was not legal. This case has been appealed and will likely reach the Supreme Court soon.

One recent case involving GPS transmitter tracking has come to national attention. Yasir Afifi, a 20-year-old Egyptian-American, brought a suit against the FBI when a mechanic discovered a GPS tracking device installed under Afifi’s car. While FBI officials have admitted to installing the tracker without Afifi’s knowledge, they have not yet released a reason why.

Afifi’s suit claimed that he had not done anything to merit FBI attention.

It  also demanded that the FBI destroy the surveillance records regarding Afifi, but they also refused to do that. Responding to Afifi’s suit, the U.S. Justice Department claims that because Afifi was not harmed in any way by the surveillance. The Justice Department also claims that the FBI director and the Attorney General are not liable to such lawsuits.

The debate about law enforcement using GPS tracking to locate persons of interest may soon be over. Once the recent appeal has been heard and decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, that will set a precedent for other courts in America to follow.

Article Written by Kadence Vyra