Email

The use of GPS tracking and the concerns over invasion of privacy have reached the highest court in the land. The United States Supreme Court is set to hear arguments concerning the use of GPS tracking devices by law enforcement without a warrant. A Washington, DC, Court of Appeals has already ruled that police must indeed obtain a warrant before they can track an individual using GPS technology, especially if they intend to submit that evidence in a court of law.
The Case

In January 2008, AntoineJones was convicted of drug trafficking; however, that conviction was overturned by an appeals court who ruled that evidence obtained through GPS tracking was deemed inadmissible because no warrant had been issued for the sustained surveillance. Data from the unit attached to Jone’s Jeep had led police to large quantities of cocaine stored in a stash house; police also found $70,000 in Jone’s vehicle.

Jones appealed his conviction, and the lower court ruled that the case did indeed violate the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure; however, the Federal Justice Department argues that a person’s movements outside his home are public and that such surveillance does not constitute an unreasonable “search.”
The Arguments
Lawyers fighting to uphold the need for a warrant argue that sustained surveillance, a month in the above-noted case, is an invasion of privacy because no one person is apt to observe another person’s movements 24-7 like GPS tracking can do. On the other hand, federal officials maintain the need the allow law enforcement to monitor a suspect’s movements unhindered in an effort to prevent a crime or to apprehend the perpetrator of a crime. They cite United States vs. Knotts from 1983; in that case, a beeper was used to track a suspect to a drug lab.

The court ruled that the use of the beeper had not violated the man’s Fourth Amendment rights. Both sides have strong arguments and evidence to support their positions.
Twelve “friend of the court” briefs were filed after the Court of Appeals overturned the conviction, and only one sided with the federal government’s position. The concern is over the large scale use of GPS technology today and how much bigger “Big Brother” will get if regulations are not put in place. Muslim Americans, in particular, feel they have been the target of unwarranted surveillance in recent years as a result of 9/11. Is a secure society more important than a citizen’s right to privacy? Should law enforcement be allowed to track a suspect without the consent or knowledge of that individual? That is all for the courts to decide.