Rocky Mountain Tracking » Rights

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.

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.

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.

Santa Fe Tests Plan to Reduce Overcrowding in Jails with GPS Tracking

John Chapman — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:41:46 +0000

Criminal recidivism rates run very high in America and almost none higher than burglary. The re-arrest rate for burglars in this country is about 74% according to the Bureau of Justice; only car thieves have a higher rate at almost 80%. Repeat incarcerations only add to the already crowded conditions of prisons and the already high cost of maintaining prisoners. To reduce overcrowding and rein in costs, Santa Fe has launched a program to outfit convicted burglars with a GPS-enabled ankle bracelet for constant monitoring. Authorities hope the round-the-clock surveillance will deter released burglars from committing further crimes. Starting with five freed convicts, Santa Fe plans to monitor and collect data to test the systems effectiveness in reducing recidivism rates among burglars.

The Cost
On average, it costs the state about $62 a day to house a criminal in a state or federal jail; this means states are paying about $30 billion a year to maintain its prison systems and take care of its prisoners. And states are paying for this through taxpayer dollars. Not only are citizens facing personal property losses of almost $2,000 per burglary, they are facing increased taxes to incarcerate repeat criminals over and over again. Most statistics show that once the initial outlay is made for the GPS tracking units, daily monitoring would cost the state approximately $10 a day per person, thus reducing the budget and freeing up jail space.

The Catch
One potential problem with the GPS tracking system rests in the hands of the Supreme Court. If they rule that 24-7 surveillance infringes on a person’s Fourth Amendment rights, Santa Fe and other cities seeking to implement GPS technology may be back to overcrowding and overspending in their jails. In anticipation of the ruling, Santa Fe has asked burglars selected for the program to sign a contract waiving their right to privacy. Those in the program are also required to obtain gainful employment, not only to give back to society but also to keep them from going back to their criminal activity.

With a burglary occurring approximately every 15 seconds in the United States, mostly by repeat offenders, states need to consider a plan of action that will not cost the taxpayer even more hard-earned money. The Chief Deputy District Attorney for Santa Fe, Doug Couleur, told ABC News in an interview, “You can’t put everyone in jails. There is no money for new jails and there are no beds in the jails. There have to be alternatives for jails and this is a pretty good one.” Used properly, GPS tracking technology in the form of monitoring, actively and passively, can help authorities reduce prison costs and prison overcrowding.

New GPS Tracking Law in Vermont is Unpopular

Mark Rummel — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 21:00:31 +0000

Because of recent laws, the state of Vermont can no longer handle search warrants the way that they were previously handled. Up until recently, courts in Vermont were able to track down information about any search warrant on any individual quickly and easily. This ability overrode a basic human right in the United States, and it was recently deemed unconstitutional by Robert Bent, a Superior Court judge in Essex, Orleans, and Caledonia counties in the state of Vermont.

Search warrants are usually stored until each piece of evidence that was found using the warrant has been filed with the court. Under this new law, inventory must be filed more quickly, meaning that information will be disposed of faster than ever. Court officials started the process for this law when a meth case was filed, and while the search warrant originally did not exist, it was later released by the court. Because this paperwork and many others have been filed incorrectly, each judge that files a search warrant is now responsible for seeing that the warrant has been filed correctly.

The hope of this new law is that police will be able to use the evidence to obtain GPS tracking information that will allow them to track personal vehicles and communication devices. This has been deemed unconstitutional by many because it is called an unreasonable search and seizure, violating the 4th amendment, but with this tracking information, and the use of the GPS tracking coordinates, officials in the affected counties of the state of Vermont believe that crimes can be solved more quickly, while still eliminating corruption among the court workers in Vermont. Because of this law, many people are angry with the government in Vermont, but law enforcement stresses that the GPS tracking should help minimize crime, and solve violent crimes more quickly.

Controversial Criminal GPS Tracking Program in New Mexico

Khristen Foss — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 21:46:48 +0000

Santa Fe police have implemented a new program for keeping an eye on criminals convicted for property crimes using GPS tracking devices. It is the first program like it in the state of New Mexico, and officials believe it is the most effective way to fight against repeat offender burglars. “It’s kind of the future of law enforcement and tracking individuals,” states Aric Wheeler, captain of the Santa Fe Police.

GPS monitoring of sex offenders is currently in place in the state, but this will be the first time burglars will be tracked. The department plans to start out the program with only five GPS devices, and will decide which criminals are “consistently convicted of committing burglaries,” with the help of the District Attorney’s office. Only those with open court cases will be reviewed. As the Department of Corrections already has a contract with the 3M company who manufactures the devices, there will be no additional cost to the city.

After court proceedings, the offender will have to sign off on an agreement for “Intensive Supervision Probation with GPS monitoring,” and further that they “understand and consent to unrestricted monitoring” by Santa Fe police. Once this agreement is reached and the paperwork is signed, police are able to check the whereabouts of the criminal.

Sgt. Peter Neal states that this is not in real-time, there will be a little bit of lag receiving data, probably a couple of minutes. However, if police have the suspicion the subject is in the middle of a burglary, they can call the monitoring company and “request live tracking.”

Both Wheeler and Neal agree that this is a positive way to prevent burglary sprees as they can now look at where a crime has occurred and where a prior offender was at the time the crime took place. They state the police, being out on the road every day patrolling problem neighborhoods, will be better suited for monitoring the offenders than the Probation and Parole department typically in charge of monitoring.

Police claim this is best for both law enforcement and criminal alike. How is this possible? “It’s a way for you to stay out of jail,” states Neal. “It’s a way for them to get out and avoid a short prison stint.” Basically, if you sign away your privacy, you get off without having to do a day in jail, keeping the cells empty for more serious offenders. However, not everyone is in agreement.

A couple of defense attorneys have been vocal about their feelings on the matter. They feel that the program will only work with those who can truly change. They bring up the point that most clients will sign the agreement without really thinking about what they are getting themselves into merely to stay out of jail. “A defense attorney better be pretty confident in their ability to amend their ways,” says Public Defender Joseph Campbell. “These guys are already earmarked for the front door of prison. They’re not being asked to do this because they’re the best of the best. They’re being asked to do this because you’re considered the worst of the worst.” He also doubts the Constitutionality of the program.

Defense attorney Tom Clark, agreeing that it seems like bad news for offenders, also wonders why the police department would take on such a task with all they already have to do. Secondly, he foresees accusations of misconduct in their future.

In the opinion of this author, the program is a bad idea simply because these are people who would otherwise be in jail. If someone has been convicted of burglary multiple times, why should they be given a second, third, or fourth chance? The monitoring idea makes a bit of sense, but goes against the guaranteed right to privacy our Constitution grants us. Police will be able to see where you are at all times, even in the comfort of your own home or at work. It is agreed that GPS tracking is a great tool for law enforcement when used properly, but I feel this is a far cry from what should be an acceptable use of it. Officials should take a long, hard look at the program and tweak it a bit before putting it into place.