Rocky Mountain Tracking

Daily GPS News

Supreme Court GPS Update

December 11th, 2011

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.

Supreme Court Warrentless Tracking Update

December 6th, 2011

We’ve been closely following the case currently being decided in the US Supreme Court on the issue of warrantless tracking and its use by law enforcement. To summarize, Antoine Jones of Washington DC was convicted back in 2008 for the possession and distribution of over 50 kilos of cocaine and sentenced to life in prison. Jones is appealing to the Supreme Court as DC authorities did not follow the guidelines of the warrant initially issued, tracking Jones via GPS device affixed to his vehicle after the warrant had expired. His defense claims this makes the evidence inadmissible.

Michael Dreeben, deputy solicitor general for the Department of Justice, argued that in Jones’ case, his privacy was not at all violated. He claimed Katz v. US set the precedent, a case where the court decided visual surveillance and surveillance done with a beeper was perfectly fine and not at all an infringement on one’s privacy as long as the car is traveling on a public roadway. “What a person seeks to preserve as private in the enclave of his own home or in a private letter or inside his vehicle when he is traveling is a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he reveals to the world, such as his movements in a car on a public roadway, is not.”

Chief Justice John Roberts disagreed claiming the current case uses technology far superior to the outdated beeper technology of the Kats v. US case. “That was 30 years ago. The technology is very different and you get a lot more information from the GPS surveillance than you do from following a beeper…That’s a lot of work to follow the car. They’ve got to listen to the beeper; when they lose it, they have got to call in the helicopter. Here, they just sit back in the station and…push a button whenever they want to find out where the car is. They look at data from a month and find out everywhere it’s been in the past month. That seems to be dramatically different.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that Dreebens argument sounds as if he’s claiming only one’s home is safe from monitoring and invasion of privacy. Justice Stephen Breyer brought up the fact that if this case does not go Jones’ way, it opens up the door to authorities to affix GPS devices on just about any car they wish. Dreeben was quick to disagree, “It involves limited surveillance of somebody who was suspected of drug activity…This court has said that trespass is neither necessary nor sufficient to create a Fourth Amendment violation.”

Both sides raise good points, but this author hopes that the case is decided in Jones’ favor for the protection of the privacy of citizens in the future. What are your thoughts on this issue? Let us know by leaving a comment.

We’ll keep you posted here at the RMT blog with new information on the case as it becomes available.

GPS Tracking Before the Supreme Court

December 2nd, 2011

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.

Supreme Court Debates Legality of Warrantless GPS Tracking

December 1st, 2011

In a case likely to cause reverberations throughout the nation, the Supreme Court prepares to determine whether or not it is constitutional for police to track the movements of suspected criminals using a GPS tracking device without a warrant. While law enforcement departments across the country have already taken advantage of the devices to aid them in surveillance operations, this case stands out due to the unique circumstances surrounding the tracking and subsequent arrest.
In United States v. Jones, Antoine Jones stood accused of trafficking cocaine in the Washington, D.C. area. Police obtained a warrant to place a GPS tracking device on Jones’ car for the purpose of following his movements through the city. The warrant was valid for ten days, but police were unable to install the device until the eleventh day.

Using evidence obtained with the GPS unit, Jones was arrested and subsequently convicted. Because the device was installed after the original warrant expired, questions arise regarding the legality and constitutionality of admitting the evidence to court.
The Fourth Amendment of the constitution states that “the right of the people to be secure…against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.” Such searches must be made only under the authority of a warrant which clearly states the place to be searched and the items to be seized. The use of GPS tracking devices to follow the movements of suspected criminals has admittedly fallen into a gray area when it comes to the issue of constitutionality.

Proponents of the practice claim that since the devices can provide no information about what is happening inside the vehicle or inside the garage in which a vehicle may be parked, its use is no different from asking an officer to follow the individual in a separate car for the purpose of observing his movements. Those who oppose warrantless GPS tracking argue that placing any type of surveillance device on a person’s vehicle without his knowledge and consent is, in the absence of a warrant, a violation of his constitutional right to privacy.
Two federal appeals courts have already reached opposing decisions on the issue of warrantless GPS tracking, meaning that the Supreme Court’s decision in this case will likely create far-reaching ripples. Whichever way the Court decides, law enforcement departments nationwide will feel the impact in their day to day surveillance practices and operational procedures.

Photo Courtesy of MethTICALman through Flickr Creative Commons

New Technology Calls for New Surveillance Laws

October 22nd, 2011

Surveillance technology has come a long way in the last few decades. GPS tracking has introduced a whole new level of visibility for law enforcement to monitor suspects. For some, these advances are a welcome aid in criminal apprehension, while others view it as a dangerous threat against citizens’ privacy rights. Right at the heart of this debate, is the historic court case, U.S. v. Jones, which will be heard by the Supreme Court on November 8, 2011.

In 2005, police attached a covert GPS tracking device to Antoine Jones’ vehicle, and monitored his movements for more than a month before arresting him for possession of cocaine and crack, with intention to distribute. Jones’ lawyers asked the judge to dismiss all evidence obtained, as the police did not have a valid warrant to track their client.

The judge refused and sentenced Jones to life in prison. His attorneys then took the case to the DC Court of Appeals, who disagreed with the previous judges’ ruling, stating that GPS tracking without a warrant violated Jones’ Fourth Amendment rights. Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg released the following statement on the case:

“We hold the whole of a person’s movements over the course of a month is not actually exposed to the public because the likelihood a stranger would observe all those movements is not just remote, it is essentially nil. It is one thing for a passerby to observe or even to follow someone during a single journey as he goes to the market or returns home from work.

It is another thing entirely for that stranger to pick up the scent again the next day and the day after that, week in and week out, dogging his prey until he has identified all the places, people, amusements, and chores that make up that person’s hitherto private routine. . . A reasonable person does not expect anyone to monitor and retain a record of every time he drives his car, including his origin, route, destination, and each place he stops and how long he stays there; rather, he expects each of those movements to remain disconnected and anonymous.”

Despite the appeals court decision, and support of the inventor of GPS tracking, the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice is appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Department of Justice argues that because the surveillance took place on public roads, and considering the widespread use of GPS technology, that suspects have no reasonable expectation of privacy. It is once again up to the U.S. government’s system of checks and balances to determine the limits to government power.

Article Written by Marisa O’Connor

Supreme Court to Decide Tracking’s Fate Next Month

October 7th, 2011

Next month, the Supreme Court will hear one of the most controversial cases of the last few years. The case will set a precedent for the legality of GPS tracking of suspects by law enforcement. The heart of the controversy lies with the privacy of United States citizens against the powers of government.

One one side of the fence, many people, including law enforcement claim that GPS tracking of suspects does not involve a breach of privacy, as there is no expectation of privacy when out in public. On the other side of the fence, people are concerned that without proper checks and balances, in the form of a warrant, it would be too easy for police to track any citizen for any reason. This does not sit very well with many citizens, including the ACLU.

“We don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy when we are out on public streets,” said Anthony Barkow, New York University Law School’s director of the Center for the Administration of Criminal Law. “Police can do it without technology. This is just sexier because it is high tech.” Barkow is among the many who feel that there is no difference between police monitoring a suspect in their vehicle and monitoring suspects at their desk over a computer screen.

Federal appeals court Judge Douglas Ginsburg offers a distinction between following a person and using GPS tracking to monitor them. “The sequence of a person’s movements can reveal still more – a single trip to the gynecologist’s office tells little about a woman, but that trip followed a few weeks later by a visit to a baby supply store tells a different story,” wrote Judge Ginsburg, who was responsible for over-turning the ruling against Antoine Jones, the same case that is going to be heard by the Supreme Court.

Article Written by Marisa O’Connor

Warrantless Tracking: Supreme Court to Decide

August 7th, 2011

This term, GPS tracking will come before the Supreme Court, who will hand down a decision regarding the legality of warrantless GPS tracking. The case regards Antoine Jones, who was arrested in 2005 with 97 kilos of cocaine in his possession. He was convicted of drug trafficking and later of drug conspiracy. Some of the evidence used by prosecutors included information collected over the course of a month from a GPS tracker.

When police fit a GPS tracker on a car, following a suspect becomes a whole lot easier than it was back in the old days. They can, in theory, sit back and relax while the computers do the work. The car’s location is transmitted from tracking device to satellites to a computer, where an officer or dispatcher can watch the car travel the map.

It saves tons of time and energy, greatly reduces the chance of losing track of a suspect, and provides concrete data to produce in court. Really, it’s not designed to allow officers to sit back and relax, but to allow them to do more of their job protecting the public.
But the rise of technology is often cause for a rise in debate. Warrants were never required for good old-fashioned eyesight surveillance. In 1983, the Supreme Court determined that a warrant was also not required for using a beeper, which transmitted a radio signal, to track a suspect – and that was also a drug-related case. But in the case of GPS, various states and federal courts have been in disagreement about how much to regulate its use by law enforcement.
The Supreme Court has previously ruled that a warrant is not required for surveillance of a single trip. In Jones’ case, a federal judge granted a warrant for the GPS tracker if it was installed in Washington, D.C. within ten days, but it was installed in Maryland on the eleventh day. Jones’ defense argued that the FBI did not follow the conditions of the warrant. The US Court of Appeals in D.C. determined the length of the surveillance to be significantly more intrusive than the single trip allowance.
Clearly, the debate is complicated and has many facets to be examined. The Supreme Court has narrowed their current look to one question: do law enforcement officials need a warrant to use GPS tracking? That is the question the prosecution and defense must prepare their arguments about this time around.

Article Written by Kadence Vyra

Supreme Court Set to Rule on Warrantless GPS Tracking

July 10th, 2011

The Supreme Court is expected to lay down the law regarding warrantless GPS tracking. Appeals courts all around the country have been hearing cases concerning the legitimacy of the evidenced obtained with GPS devices. Mixed rulings have created murky legal waters. In some cases, evidence gathered from a GPS device without a warrant was thrown out, while other courts ruled that the evidence obtained the same way was legal.

“Unless this court intervenes, the court of appeals’ decision will curtail law enforcement’s ability to use this important investigatory tool,” Solicitor General Donald Verrilli included in a brief to the court.

“Federal law enforcement agencies frequently use tracking devices to follow leads and tips before suspicions have ripened into probable cause and without a clear idea of how long it will take to gather useful information,” added Verrilli.

He further makes his case by noting that FBI agents used GPS tracking technology to follow a terrorist suspect, Najibullah Zazi, driving from Denver to New York City, a 1,800 mile distance.

The heart of the issue is every citizen’s right to privacy, and the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. There is no doubt that GPS tracking can help gather incriminating evidence, and bring outlaws to justice.

No one is claiming that the technology shouldn’t be used. In fact, the officers in the appeals case referenced by Donald Verrilli, had obtained a warrant to use GPS tracking.

The warrant had set limits and specifications that the officers did not heed. It comes down to who gets to decide whether or not GPS surveillance is warranted. In cases of wire-tapping, a similar evidence gathering aide, law enforcement must obtain a warrant from a judge. Some time during the next term, from October 2011 through June 2012, the Supreme Court judges will clear the muddy waters, and define what legal GPS tracking is.

Article Written by Marisa O’Connor

Illegal GPS Tracking: A Scary Thought?

June 27th, 2011

Recently, we’ve reported instances around the country where GPS tracking without a warrant has come under fire. The ACLU claims that it’s wrong to place a GPS device on a suspect’s vehicle without a warrant, while law enforcement and even the Obama Administration are pleading with the US Supreme Court to rule in favor of this invasion of privacy.

Let’s go back a bit to 2004, when DC police and the FBI were wondering what a man named Antoine Jones was up to. They had a feeling he was involved with drug distribution, and needed proof. What better way than secretly attaching a GPS tracking device to his vehicle? They even obtained a warrant for it, but foolishly ignored the guidelines set forth by the court.

Rather than installing the device in the 10 days stipulated in the warrant, and only in the District of Columbia, FBI agents took 11 days and attached the tracker in Maryland. Not cool.

Although a jury charged Jones with conspiracy to distribute and possess 5 kilograms of cocaine, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned this conviction, deciding that it just wasn’t right to monitor the car outside of the guidelines of the warrant.

The Obama administration then decided to bring the case to the US Supreme Court, which has yet to reach a decision regarding the matter.

The courts feel that without first obtaining a warrant, law enforcement is violating an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights. Do you agree? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Article Written by Khristen Foss

Delaware Supreme Court to Rule on Warrantless GPS Tracking

June 18th, 2011

Warrantless GPS tracking has been a subject of much debate and controversy for a few years now. A case is being brought to the attention of the Delaware Supreme Court, which may help define the limits of electronic surveillance across the United States. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is requesting that the Supreme Court judges uphold a Superior Court ruling against warrantless tracking.

Michael D. Holden, a 28-year-old suspected drug dealer, was arrested after police found 10 pounds of marijuana in his vehicle. The problem is that the police made this arrest after illegally monitoring Holden for more than 20 days, with GPS technology. The drug evidence was tossed out by the Superior Court judge, ruling in Holden’s favor.

At the heart of this issue is the constitutional right to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Peter N. Letang, a defense attorney, weighed in on the issue. “It is tough to carve out an expectation of privacy when everyone wise knows where you are.” He is referring to the availability of GPS tracking information provided by smart phones and vehicles. Many corporations, such as Apple and Google, sell location information to advertising companies for a profit.

“They are selling information about your movement to advertisers,” explained Widener University associate professor Wesley Oliver. He goes on to ask, “And if Apple can use my movement to sell me gas, why can’t the government [use the information] to break up drug rings or find terrorists?”

Defense attorney Joseph A. Gabay offers a counterpoint. “The difference is it is the state in one case, and it is Google [a corporation] in the others. You can sue Google for invasion of privacy but there is no constitutional remedy.”

Superior Court Judge Jan R. Jurden heard the case against Holden, and sided with the defendant, throwing out the drug evidence obtained from warrantless GPS tracking. She explains, “The advance of technology will continue ad infinitum. . . An Orwellian state is now technologically feasible. WIthout adequate judicial preservation of privacy, there is nothing to protect our citizens from being tracked 24/7.”

Not surprisingly, the ACLU agrees with Jurden’s ruling. “This case is especially important because of its impact on the privacy rights of all Delawareans, including the vast majority who will never be charged with a crime,” stated Richard Morse, ACLU attorney, in court papers filed with the Delaware Supreme Court.

Article Written by Marisa O’Connor