Email

A case being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court addresses the role of GPS tracking technology in law enforcement. At issue is the FBI’s use of a GPS tracker secretly attached to the car of a suspected drug dealer. The accused individual (facing a life prison sentence for large-scale drug sales) and his lawyers claim that the tracking was a violation of his fourth amendment rights. The verdict in this case will answer an important question that has so far been unclear: Can local police and national law enforcement agencies use GPS technology to track someone without having a warrant to do so?

The Prosecution

Law enforcement claims that placing a GPS device on a car in a public area is the same as physically following the car (which is permissible without a warrant). It simply makes the process more efficient, more thorough, and less expensive for taxpayers. By allowing law enforcement to make use of new technology, they can better protect the public and conduct surveillance of suspects in a way that does not consume time and resources with stakeouts or car chases.

The Defense

The defense argues that using GPS is far more invasive than simply following a suspect’s car temporarily. The tracking is constant, total, and continues when the suspect is on private property (which cannot be searched by police without a warrant). The fourth amendment protects citizens against “unreasonable search and seizure,” and the defense in this case claims that tracking a citizen 24 hours a day without his knowledge is unreasonable. At issue is whether the use of GPS technology revealed more information than a traditional search conducted under established policies would have. If so, the court will likely rule that the FBI should have obtained a search warrant before using the GPS tracker.

Many organizations advocating privacy rights, in addition to one of the inventors of GPS technology, have been outspoken in their concern about this case. They fear the potential abuses that are possible if police are given the right to secretly track the location and activities of citizens thoroughly and constantly without charging them with a crime. This ability has never been available in a cost-effective way, but today it is a real possibility and the upcoming ruling by the Supreme Court will provide important guidance as law enforcement agencies determine exactly how to use this powerful new tool.