Rocky Mountain Tracking

Daily GPS News

Obama Administration Claims Warrantless GPS Tracking is Legal and Necessary

June 25th, 2012

Back in January of this year, the US Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is constitutionally required before attaching a GPS tracking device to a suspect’s vehicle. In the historic case, US v. Jones, the evidence gathered from a GPS tracking device, placed on Antoine Jones’ vehicle by federal agents was deemed unusable. Despite the ruling from the highest court in the land, the Obama Administration is arguing that GPS tracking does not require a warrant. “A warrant is not needed for a GPS search, as the [Supreme] Court … did not resolve that question.” said a spokesperson from the US Justice Department.

However, the department was also quoted in the Wall Street Journal, stating that they’ve “advised agents and prosecutors going forward to take the most prudent steps and obtain a warrant for new or ongoing investigations,” as a precaution. At the heart of this issue is the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Law enforcement agents and representatives have claimed that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on public roads, and that GPS tracking is merely a “limited intrusion”. Furthermore, the US government claims that requiring a warrant would severely limit their ability to protect citizens from internal and external threats. In a statement submitted to the Ninth Circuit appeals court, the Obama Administrations claims that “requiring a warrant and probable cause would seriously impede the government’s ability to investigate drug trafficking, terrorism and other crimes.”

Fortunately, the ACLU and other civil rights groups are working to preserve the rights of US citizens. In an ongoing case, attorneys from the ACLU filed a brief with the Ninth Circuit, stating, “The warrant requirement is especially important here given the extraordinary intrusiveness of modern-day electronic surveillance. Without a warrant requirement, the low cost of GPS tracking and data storage would permit the police to continuously track every driver.”

GPS Evidence Admissibility Being Questioned in Kansas City

February 22nd, 2012

Following the important Supreme Court ruling in the case of Antoine Jones, where evidence collected via GPS device was deemed illegally obtained as there was no valid warrant in place, a Kansas City man waits to see if he will be as lucky in the case against him. Shon A. Pernice is accused of murdering his wife, his trial set for February 27, and prosecutors are pushing the court to accept evidence gathered from a GPS tracking device installed on Pernice’s vehicle. The charges against Pernice, 39: first-degree murder. Renee Pernice mysteriously disappeared in January of 2009, her body still yet to be found.

On February 10, during the preliminary hearing, testimony was given by an undercover officer regarding the GPS monitoring of Pernice. It was also confirmed other undercover officers followed him, tracking him visually. Pernice’s lawyer, Eric Vernon, argues that Pernice’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated. He deems the GPS tracker unconstitutional and therefore illegal, making it inadmissible as evidence in the case. He referenced the Jones case which clearly states authorities are to obtain a warrant prior to any sort of GPS surveillance. Just as in the Jones case, a valid warrant was not obtained prior to placing the tracking device.

On top of the GPS surveillance, it was revealed anywhere from five to seven undercover officers followed Pernice for three weeks, 24 hours each day. Authorities felt the inconsistencies in Pernice’s story about what happened on the night of her disappearance are suspicious. “He may lead us to the body of Renee Pernice,” testified the undercover officer.

During the surveillance, Pernice was seen driving his minivan to Line Creek Park which was over a mile away from his residence. He opened the door, let his wife’s dog out of the car, and drove home, leaving the dog behind. He was also monitored during a candlelight vigil held by Renee’s family which Shon Pernice attended. In addition to asking the court to exclude the GPS evidence, the defense is also asking the court to disregard cell phone records as well. The next hearing in this case is set for February 23.

Warrantless GPS Tracking: An Open Door That Must Be Closed

February 17th, 2012

The U.S. v. Jones case came before the Supreme Court on January 23^rd, and for those who haven ‘t a clue what this case is about, here’s the rundown: Antoine Jones, wanted for drug distribution, had a GPS tracking device installed on his personal vehicle after the warrant claiming the Washington, DC authorities could do so had expired. He was convicted based on the information gathered by the GPS device, but the DC court overturned the ruling due to the fact the tracking device was placed without a warrant.

The Supreme Court, after much deliberation, agreed with the lower court and ruled that police did not have the right to place a GPS tracker without first obtaining a warrant to do so. Regardless of the outcome, the justices did not unanimously agree, laying out three separate opinions on the issue.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion, which stated that Jones’ Fourth Amendment right protecting him against illegal search and seizure was violated by the placement of the GPS tracking device. “The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information,” he said. “We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.”

Justice Sonya Sotomayor agreed with most of Scalia’s opinion, but drafted her own opinion. It listed other privacy concerns she felt needed mentioning, and spoke out against the minority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito. He writes, “New technology may provide increased convenience or security at the expense of privacy, and many people may find the trade-off worthwhile. And even if the public does not welcome the diminution of privacy that new technology entails, they may eventually reconcile themselves to this development as inevitable.”

Justice Sotomayor counters that this would not be the case, stating “I for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the government of a list of every website (for example) they had visited in the last week, or month, or year.”

One thing that is clear from the points raised by the courts’ opinions: it’s time to address the privacy issues that are bound to arise with new technology, like smartphones, before the issues are even brought before the court. Senator Ron Wyden and Rep. Jason Chaffetz agree, and have created the GPS Act which lays out in detail the rules for law enforcement, citizens, and businesses in regards to accessing GPS location data. It would “require law enforcement agencies to get a warrant when they want to acquire an individual’s geolocation information from a private company” and “require warrants when law enforcement agencies want to monitor individuals’ movements directly, using covertly installed tracking devices or similar means.” If an emergency occurs, however, authorities are granted the ability to access the information needed immediately and worry about the warrant later.

This author hopes the bill passes. If there are rules regarding wiretapping, then shouldn’t there be rules regarding your GPS coordinates and electronic information? As Wyden and Chaffetz point out, “…surreptitiously turning an individual’s cell phone into a tracking device without their knowledge has a substantial privacy impact, just like tapping that person’s phone or searching that person’s house.” Do you agree? Weigh in by commenting below, or go a step further and contact your congressmen and urge them to support this bill.

How Will GPS Tracking Change Modern Law Enforcement?

February 13th, 2012

Before the United States Supreme Court gave its recent ruling mandating a warrant for clandestine GPS tracking of suspects, police in Staunton, VA, were tracking a small-time criminal. Kameron Dee Coverstone-Jenkins was allegedly on a spree of break-ins, smash-and-grabs, and general thievery. Police had secretly placed a GPS locator on his truck. Law enforcement used the device to track Coverstone-Jenkins as a dirt bike was stolen, and then a car theft that allegedly yielded the criminal $14,000 in jewelry.

Police arrested Coverstone-Jenkins as he attempted to sell the jewelry to a shopping mall jewelry store. The GPS tracker aided police as they obtained visual proof of Coverstone-Jenkins’ alleged crimes. He now rests in jail, facing 14 charges including grand larceny. Unfortunately, that case is now up in the air thanks to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that requires a warrant for such tracking. When police fitted Coverstone-Jenkins’ vehicle with a GPS, it was done without a warrant.

It is apparent that the Supreme Court’s ruling is already having a huge impact on crime-fighting activities large and small, nationwide. The original Supreme Court case involved a Washington D.C. nightclub owner named Antoine Jones, who was tracked via GPS in a manner similar to Kameron Dee Coverstone-Jenkins. Jones, an accused drug kingpin, found his case in front of the Supreme Court for a decision regarding the constitutionality of GPS tracking without a warrant.

Fans of the television show “The Wire” understand that modern technology plays a vital role in the conviction and capture of drug lords nationwide. Law enforcement relies on modern technology in the same manner that modern intelligence services do. The battle is won not just on the streets, but over the airwaves as well: hacking, encryption, and GPS tracking all function together as police and drug lords wage their war.

The Supreme Court ruling is either a speed bump or a monkey wrench in the modern US crime fighting machine. Obtaining a warrant for GPS tracking will no doubt slow down American crime fighting efforts. The irony of the supreme court decision is the sheer number of Americans volunteer incriminating, private information online.

Supreme Court Decides Warrants Needed for GPS Tracking

January 28th, 2012

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.

New GPS Tracking Law in Vermont is Unpopular

January 15th, 2012

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.

Constitution Project Weighs in on Warrantless GPS Tracking

October 8th, 2011

The United States Supreme Court is getting ready to rule on the legality of warrantless GPS tracking scheduled for November 2011. The case at hand involves Washington nightclub owner Antoine Jones, who was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine. In anticipation of this historic court case, the Constitution Project, a bipartisan Washington think tank, issued a report on the legality and complexity of GPS tracking in law enforcement.

Some of the evidence used to convict Jones was obtained through warrantless GPS tracking. Some groups feel that police went outside the law and violated Antoine Jones’ privacy, while others, including the Obama administration, argue that a warrant is not needed when tracking suspects on public streets. The warrantless GPS tracking debate can be considered “one instance of the much broader problem of regulating new technology,” explained Patricia Wald, a former chief judge on Washington’s federal appeals court and member of the Constitution Project.

The report emphasizes the usefulness of GPS tracking in law enforcement, “but the government should not have unchecked discretion to electronically track anyone, anywhere, and any time without cause.” The capabilities of GPS tracking “are now far more sophisticated and precise, and more significantly, they are capable of providing continuous monitoring and the compilation of vast databases of information about individuals’ daily movements.”

On the other hand, the Constitution Project suggests that a warrant need not be acquired for surveillance under 24 hours. “It’s one thing to track somebody for a day, and another thing to track every place he went for a month. That’s different qualitatively, not just quantitatively,” offered David Keene, co-chairman of the group that wrote the report and former chairman of the American Conservation Union.

Also among the panel that produced the report, was Asa Hutchinson, who was in charge of the DEA under the second Bush administration. “As the former head of the DEA, I understand the need for tracking bad guys, being able to secretly monitor a suspect’s movements. But this is a good balance between the needs of law enforcement and privacy issues,” said Hutchinson.

Article Written by Marisa O’Connor

NYPD Calls Accusations “Fictional”

August 29th, 2011

This weekend, we published an article about a NYPD spy ring. To summarize, the Associated Press had released a story stating that the NYPD has been spying on certain ethnic neighborhoods with the help of the CIA. Now, the NYPD is calling the report fictional. The NYPD claims that the report was blown out of proportion.

A spokesman for the NYPD, Paul Browne, told press this morning that “We’re going to do all we reasonably can to keep New York safe. We do so in partnership with the FBI and other federal agencies, and we uphold the Constitution in doing so.” The earlier AP news release stated that the FBI has nothing to do with the operation, and that the Federal Bureau was shocked by the news that the NYPD was, seemingly, breaking Constitutional laws.

Once news about the supposed spying broke out, civil liberty groups called for hearing and investigations into the matter. A spokesperson for one group said that such a program would be “a waste of precious resources…”

If the NYPD program does function the way that the Associated Press originally stated, this bit of news hits very close to Constitutional concerns surrounding GPS tracking. While nothing has surfaced stating that the NYPD used tracking devices, other law officials across the country have resorted to these tactics. At every turn, the Constitution must be revisited in order to apply citizen rights to modern times.

At present, the NYPD program in question is being closely monitored. Missed the original story? We don’t blame you, Hurricane Irene grabbed everyone’s attention this weekend! You can catch up on the NYPD story here.

Article Written by Harriette Halepis

GPS Tracking Systems vs. Privacy – Which Side Wins?

May 2nd, 2009

By James Neely

In Boston, Massachusetts there is a case pending before the Supreme Judicial Court which will decide the legality of using GPS Tracking systems in tracking suspected criminals for the intent of gathering evidence for the support of charges against those involved in crimes.

U.S. Supreme Court

The case has one underlying question as to the Constitutionality of the activity: Do the actions by police constitute illegal search and seizure when these devices are used without a prior warrant?

What the GPS Tracking system does. The devices being utilized by police are attached to a subject’s vehicle which then allows those cars to be tracked with incredible detail. Once retrieved by police, they can plug into a computer at headquarters to watch on-screen movements and locations of the suspects even to the point of being able to track the speed of the vehicle. It is like having police personnel right in the car at the time of the activities in question.

The case before the SJC in Massachusetts is drawing attention because the court ruling will send ripples through the law enforcement community. Police confirm the usage of the devices in ever increasing amounts, but say that warrants are obtained before-hand, otherwise the evidence would never be allowed in court to begin with.

The privacy issue. A larger and more relevant issue surrounds privacy and the lack thereof as these come into common uses across the nation. To the most conservative of those who allow for police activity that helps solve crimes, GPS Tracking systems present a real threat to privacy. It appears that no longer do we have a system of laws that maintain the innocence of a suspected party until proven guilty, but rather, anyone and everyone are considered guilty and these devices are used to obtain evidence to support that position.

The law enforcement justification. Police are always looking for ways to help prevent and solve crimes. The utilization of GPS tracking systems gives them an upper hand in this area, but also opens them up to abuse and misuse.

What’s the cost of safety? Ultimately we must decide between added safety and security at the expense of freedom. This is a debate that has been raging since the events of 9/11. Just because we have the tools and ability to track and monitor human activity does not mean that they should be used unabated against ordinary citizens.

There appears to be no clear-cut answer to this question other than waiting to see what the SJC in Massachusetts will decide. From there, other courts will probably follow suit with the same type of rulings. A ‘wait and see’ attitude prevails at this point.