Rocky Mountain Tracking » Law Enforcement

Supreme Court Ruling Could Make or Break First-Degree Murder Trial

Marisa O'Connor — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:00:59 +0000

In wake of the recent Supreme Court ruling, calling warrantless GPS tracking unconstitutional, attorneys around the country are digging through their cases and filing appeals. Eric Vernon, Shon Pernice’s defense lawyer, is no exception. Pernice, an independent firefighter in Kansas City, MO, is charged with first-degree murder of his spouse, whose body has yet to be found. He is scheduled to stand trial later this month, and his attorney hopes that the recent Supreme Court ruling will work favorably in Pernice’s case.

Renee Pernice, the suspect’s spouse, was reported missing in January of 2009. Investigators and Renee’s family believe her husband is responsible for her disappearance. Because the body has yet to be located, there is little hard evidence against the defendant. Now it appears some of the most incriminating evidence is being called into question. The suspect was traced to a park within days of his wife’s disappearance, and was seen releasing the family dog. However, investigators may have only been able to witness this suspicious activity with the help of a GPS tracking device installed on Pernice’s vehicle. According to Vernon, police tracked his client’s cell phone and vehicle without obtaining a warrant.

Vernon filed motions to suppress the evidence gained through illegal GPS tracking. A Clay County judge will make a decision as to the fate of the evidence on Friday. According to Paul Morrison, a former Johnson County District Attorney who now practices as a defense lawyer, the Supreme Court didn’t do investigators any favors. “It’s going to make police work a little harder,” said Morrison. “Prosecutors and police are going to have to get warrants when they want to do this kind of thing.” As more and more cases like this pop up, time will show the lasting impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

CA Arson Suspect Tracked Without Warrant

Marisa O'Connor — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:00:08 +0000

After many mixed rulings across the country regarding whether or not police need a warrant to track suspects with GPS, the Supreme Court announced the final verdict: evidence obtained from a GPS device without a warrant will not hold up in court. This was great news for Antoine Jones, of the infamous case heard by the high court, but has some California residents concerned. Attorneys across the land are searching through their case histories for opportunities to appeal guilty verdicts, and Jairo Perkins-Grubbs’ lawyers are no exception.

Perkins-Grubbs is being charged with 20 felony counts of arson for allegedly setting a series of fires in Butte County, CA. The fires began towards the end of July and continued until October 3, 2011, causing massive amounts of property damage in the area. His attorneys are hoping to use the historic Supreme Court ruling to challenge some of the evidence obtained against their client. According to the defense, investigators monitored the suspect with a GPS device without a warrant.

The best case scenario for Perkins-Grubbs is if the bulk of evidence against him was obtained from the illegal GPS device. Prosecutors in the case say they are unsure what the Supreme Court ruling will mean for this case. Any evidence gathered illegally cannot be used against the suspect in court. However, if enough evidence is available outside the tracking device, the case may still hold up.

It is a scary thought that such a dangerous criminal could be released over a legal technicality. Unfortunately, cases like this reveal that the U.S. court system is far from perfect. Some criminals will walk free, but we can hope that at the very least, these close calls with the law can serve as a deterrent from future crimes.

Supreme Court Throws Monkey Wrench Into Justice Department GPS Tracking

John Chapman — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:00:16 +0000

The Supreme Court has spoken, and the Justice Department is not happy–much less the legal community as a whole. The current buzz is that the Court backed off on the opportunity to clearly delineate how GPS tracking technology will change the face of law enforcement.

The case began as law enforcement officials tracked a Washington D.C. drug kingpin. As the suspect moved back and forth to various stash houses, law enforcement tracked the suspect’s vehicle with a clandestinely placed GPS tracking device. A warrant for GPS tracking had been obtained, but it had expired before the device was installed.

That the case made it all the way to the US Supreme Court was a windfall, no doubt, for the kingpin. The US legal system as a whole–as well as the GPS industry–waited in suspense, expecting a Supreme Court ruling that could redefine the use and nature of GPS tracking in the legal profession.

The ruling disappointed many–even some that sit on the high court. The Supreme Court’s decision unanimously ruled that the evidence obtained through GPS tracking was null and void, as it was obtained without a warrant. However, the court also unanimously declined to take it any further than that, eliciting questions as to whether the nation’s highest court went far enough to address GPS use in law enforcement.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s opinion may become one of the most legendarily disappointed opinions in modern day Supreme Court rulings. The Justice expressed dismay that, even though most Americans routinely post private information publicly, the government may not act as if the information is public. The decision should have sent shock waves through the legal system. Instead, it was a whimper, with many complaining that the court marginalized the case into a simple situation of surveillance without a valid warrant.

The United States’ legal approach to GPS tracking is still not fully formed. The nation simply does not know how to handle the legal implications of increasing dependence on technology. Facebook, GPS tracking, texting, and Twitter are all too quickly reshaping what it means to have freedom of speech in the US.

Serial Rapist Verdict Will Probably Stand in Wake of Supreme Court GPS Ruling

John Chapman — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:00:31 +0000

Shock waves are still rippling through the US legal system after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement agencies must obtain a warrant before tracking suspects with a GPS tracking device. Accused criminals, lawyers, and police are scrambling to see how the ruling may retroactively impact cases that are over a decade old.

One such case involves a serial rapist that attacked women in Tennessee from 1994 to 2008. Robert Jason Burdick was finally tried, convicted and jailed after police carefully built a case against the criminal. Days before his arrest, police secretly installed a GPS tracker on the man’s vehicle.

Throughout the trial, Burdick’s lawyer argued that the accused man’s Constitutional rights were violated by the installation of the GPS. Carrie Gasaway, the attorney that defended Burdick, claimed that evidence obtained by the device was not valid. Her case never made it to the Supreme Court. Burdick remains in jail today.

So, does the recent United States Supreme Court ruling invalidate Burdick’s conviction? Should Burdick be released from jail? Analysts say that Burdick’s release will likely not happen anytime soon.

The evidence used to convict Burdick wasn’t obtained with the GPS tracker. Indeed, law enforcement use of GPS was not common in Tennessee during that time, and police were far from dependent on it in building their case against Burdick. What got Burdick convicted was DNA. The serial rapist’s DNA was taken from crime scenes and matched to DNA taken from silverware the man used at a restaurant. The GPS tracker came into the case late in the game. In fact, the GPS only functioned as apart of an already comprehensive twenty-four hour surveillance process used by police.

The case of the “Wooded Rapist” will likely not be overturned due to the United States Supreme Court ruling regarding GPS tracking warrants. Evidence obtained through GPS tracking was marginal–Burdick would have been proven guilty without it. Because of this, a solid conviction stands, and Burdick remains guilty under the law and incarcerated in the state of Tennessee. Burdick was arrested and convicted thanks to solid, careful, methodical police work. There is no replacement for such fine police work–and Tennessee remains a safer place to live because of that.

Idaho Copper Thief Nabbed Thanks to GPS

Khristen Foss — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:00:32 +0000

In today’s age of economic woes, copper theft is on the rise. The high price of copper coupled with desperation on the part of thieves has led to problems all over the country related to its theft: tornado warning sirens failing to sound due to thieves stealing the copper wiring which power them, power outages due to stripped transformers which also rely on copper wiring, and inoperable wells and pumps on desert farms who rely on these wires to bring much needed water to their crops. Contractors all over the country are experiencing thefts from their incomplete homes, an easy target for thieves as there is no one home to stop them, doors or windows often left unlocked.

Officers in Burley, Idaho decided to do something about it and began embedding GPS tracking devices right into the wiring which led to a recent arrest in Cassia County. Sheriff Randy Kidd reports Jorge Ernest Castillo, 38 of Burley, along with a 15-year-old accomplice were arrested for alleged grand theft thanks to the GPS locating device and “good old law enforcement.” The copper he stole was worth an estimated $1,200.

Kidd, in a press release, calls out would-be thieves and tells them to beware: “Let this be a warning to potential copper thieves, the next roll of wire that you take may be the one that has our tracker embedded in it and you will be next.”

Officers planted a spool of copper wire complete with GPS device in a rural area in Cassia County as bait to attract a thief. After a period of time, officers were alerted that the spool was on the move, around 5:24pm. They followed the signal given out by the embedded device and were led directly to the suspect’s car. The arrest of Castillo and his accomplice is the second arrest attributed to the location device in the last two years.

Kidd stated he planned to use these devices as much as his budget would afford, as the department must not only pay for the $800 device itself, but for the activation of the tracking system as well. Kidd feels these tracking devices are the most effective tool they could possibly rely on to capture copper thieves.

Castillo is being held at the Mini-Cassia Criminal Justice Center and faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted. The minor was released to his parents.

Supreme Court Decides Warrants Needed for GPS Tracking

Marisa O'Connor — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:00:42 +0000

In a historical case, the highest courts in the land, the U.S. Supreme Court, ruled that law enforcement are required to obtain a warrant before monitoring a suspect with a GPS tracking device. Since the technology was developed, countless innovations have been developed for GPS tracking. One of the most controversial uses of the technology has been police surveillance. Courts across the United States have been split on the constitutionality of warrantless GPS tracking. The issue was recently heard before the Supreme Court, in the historical United States v. Jones case.

The court’s decision is a “landmark ruling in applying the Fourth Amendment’s protections to advances in surveillance technology,” said Andrew Pincus, a Washington lawyer, in a brief filed on Jones’ behalf. The case in question involved Antoine Jones, a D.C. nightclub owner who received a life sentence after police found a large stash of drugs in his vehicle. The sentence was overturned by the D.C. Court of Appeals, due to the fact that much of the evidence obtained was provided by information gathered from the GPS device illegally attached to Jones’ vehicle.

This high-profile case was the latest in a string of similar cases receiving mixed rulings across the country, and caught the Obama Administration’s attention. The Administration asked that the high courts reinforce the original conviction. The primary argument for Jones’ sentencing is that GPS tracking is no different than other means of surveillance, which do not require a search warrant.

The Supreme Court Judges unanimously disagreed, setting an important precedent for tracking technology and privacy rights. “We hold that the government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search,’” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia. Ironically, the officers on Jones’ case did obtain a warrant before attaching the tracking device to his vehicle. They only had ten days to attach the device, and waiting until that period had expired before using it, violating the warrant.

GPS Tracking Program in Santa Fe for Repeat Burglary Cases

Hillary Mayfield — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:00:01 +0000

With overcrowded prisons and the high cost of incarcerating a criminal, officials in Santa Fe, New Mexico have recently started a new program that they hope will ease the burden of both problems on society. Police will use GPS tracking ankle bracelets on convicted burglars in an effort to deter them from repeat crimes.

The Problem
Studies have found that burglars tend to go right back to their crimes once released from prison. Almost like an addiction, repeat incarcerations seem to have little effect, and it costs the taxpayer thousands of dollars every year. The fact of the matter is that police often note spikes in burglary type crimes whenever a burglar is released from jail. In an ABC News report, Santa Fe Police Captain Eric Wheeler said that the use of GPS technology is an alternative to re-incarceration that he hopes will prove effective in reducing the number of burglaries.

The Program
According to Chief Deputy District Attorney Doug Couler of Santa Fe, the program will focus on those convicted burglars who have long sentences, multiple convictions, or a history of juvenile burglary. District prosecutors and police will work with a defendant’s attorney to determine whether the individual qualifies for the program. In light of the current case before the Supreme Court in regards to GPS tracking and Fourth Amendment rights, the full cooperation of the defendant must be obtained to maintain the Constitutionality of the program. The individual must waive his right to privacy since the police will have unrestricted access to the data collected from the GPS-enabled tracking device put on the defendant’s person. Those enrolled in the program must also agree to obtain a job in order to be a contributing member of society.

The Procedure
The tracking devices have both passive and real-time tracking capabilities. Those enrolled in the program will be monitored only passively unless there is a rash of burglaries in the area where the defendant lives or if the crimes seem to reflect a particular individual’s modus operandi. In that case, police will contact the GPS tracking company to obtain the real-time data that can either place the individual at the scene of the crime or clear him of wrongdoing.

Since longer jail times and repeat incarcerations do not seem to be effective, authorities in Santa Fe hope that GPS technology and the knowledge that someone is watching will be enough to deter these otherwise harmless criminals from committing more burglaries.

GPS in Taxi Helps Australian Rape Victim’s Case

Khristen Foss — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:00:13 +0000

It is any woman’s worst nightmare. After a night of heavy drinking, a 24 year old woman jumped into a taxi and consequently passed out in the backseat. What she claims happened next is currently being debated in front of a jury, who must decide if the two men involved are guilty of the charges against them: sexual penetration without consent. This is indeed no easy task due to her incoherent condition, but the GPS tracking device installed inside the taxis taken by both men should make things much easier.

Prosecutor Janelle Scutt laid out the gory details in her opening statement. The victim was denied access to the Hip-E nightclub, and decided that maybe it was time to head home. As such, she hailed the cab of Amrit Pal Singh, 31. She passed out, and he called another cab driver, Prabhjit Singh Gill, 36, to meet him in a parking lot off of the Kwinana Freeway. Gill obliged, and the two men proceeded to rape the victim. Singh faces one charge of sexual penetration without consent, while Gill faces two for allegedly grabbing her head and penetrating her mouth as well.

The two men deny the charges, but the fact that the Swan Taxi Company equips their vehicles with GPS tracking devices makes it quite difficult to believe them. Upon reviewing the information gathered by the GPS tracking devices on both taxis, it was determined the two men met up at the park around the time the victim was picked up, and more importantly, they remained there for 30 to 45 minutes.

As if the GPS location information isn’t incriminating enough, DNA swabs taken the day following the alleged rape are confirmed to match Singh’s DNA.

Of course, with all of the evidence stacked against the men, they will likely jump to the “she gave consent” he-said-she-said defense. Scutt addressed this in her opening arguments: “It was without her consent. She couldn’t provide consent…at the time she (the victim) was at best in a state of semi consciousness.” In other words, she may not have said no, but she definitely did not say yes.

The trial is slated to go on for at least five days.

Big Brother and GPS Tracking

Hillary Mayfield — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:00:23 +0000

Orwell’s book 1984 raised alarms about big government always watching, but his fictional work is creeping ever closer to reality. As more cases involving GPS tracking come to light, citizens are beginning to realize what is at stake. Even the highest court in the land seems uncertain as to how to decide on the necessity of a warrant before tracking a suspect.

In the Name of Justice
The case before the Supreme Court concerns whether police should be required to obtain a warrant before tracking an individual. It might be tempting to say no since the police are serving the greater good of the community, but where does investigating end and prying start? Most people think in terms of navigational help when it comes to GPS, but GPS units used by the police are more of a two-way communication device. These GPS tracking devices interact with cellular data networks to keep a constant vigil on a suspect’s vehicle. It seems to fall more in the category of wiretapping, which does require a warrant, than a simple stake-out.

For You or Against You
Government is not the only one watching. Electronic devices of just about every kind have the ability to track a person’s location, browsing history, and apps. Makers of these devices not only keep record of this information, they sell it to other companies in an attempt to build their business. Companies like SmartPhone, Google, Facebook, and Verizon Wireless all sell information they gather from their customers to outside companies looking for a new pool of clients to draw from. Even the innocent collecting of traffic data by a GPS navigation company for the purpose of helping its users can be used by police to setup speed traps. Medical records and financial information can be released, children can be tracked, and employment can be terminated based on false information.

In a country where right to privacy is everything, why do Americans allow such scrutiny of their movements, purchases, and searches? Is it the free apps, ready access to information, easy to use navigational tools? How big are we willing to let Big Brother get? GPS tracking technology is very useful, but the buyer must beware and realize what he is sacrificing in the name of technology.

High Tech Police Dogs

Hillary Mayfield — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 21:00:29 +0000

Police dogs are trained to track a variety of things, including missing persons, criminals, drugs, and explosives. Though highly trained, a dog is still a dog and may give chase to something other than its object; even while on duty. That is what happened to Bane, a German Shepherd dog in the Michigan State Police canine unit. While searching for a missing elderly dementia patient, police think Bane gave chase to a deer. The dog was never seen again.

The Dog
Bane’s disappearance represented not only an emotional loss to the handlers, but also the loss of a huge investment for the Michigan State Police; a $35,000 investment to be precise. An untrained police dog can cost between $6,000 and $8,000 dollars. Add in the multiple man hours needed to train these highly specialized animals and you have a valuable piece of police property that is not easily or quickly replaced.

The Collar
After Bane disappeared, the organization Friends of Canines and the Riverview Firefighter’s Union donated $5,000 to the Michigan State Police for the specific purpose of purchasing GPS tracking collars for the canine unit; the money was enough to outfit all 32 dogs in the canine unit with the special collars. Police hope to protect their investment through this technology by being able to recover lost or injured animals. The collars will also help investigators get to victims sooner by pinpointing exact locations. One company says that its collar can track dogs as far away as 7.48 miles, depending on the surrounding terrain. In turn, rescue workers can better plot escape routes out of dense forests or mountainous regions based on the data received from the GPS tracking collars.

Considering the time and money invested in a police dog, it only makes sense to outfit the animal with a device that can track its movements and location. The cost of a GPS tracking collar is but a fraction of the total cost of a canine unit dog. Beyond the value of the dog is the value of a missing person who may be better served by well-trained, well-tracked police dogs.