A ruling by the Supreme Court has made it illegal to track a GPS device without a probable-cause warrant.
On Monday the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that in most cases, police, private investigators, and anyone else in need of tracking someone via GPS must acquire a probable-cause warrant before attaching a stand-alone GPS device to a vehicle they do not own. Attaching a GPS device and tracking the target without the warrant is now deemed illegal under the 4th Amendment.
The ruling goes against the Obama administration's position which claims that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle was not a search. The administration even said that it could attach a GPS device to all nine members og the Supreme Court without a warrant. But the majority of the justices disagreed, ruling that such an action does in fact constitute as a search, especially over a long period of time.
The ruling stems from a case involving a District of Columbia drug dealer who was tracked for a month via a GPS device without a warrant. The long-term tracking was deemed legal at the time he was sentenced, but the Supreme Court saw this as "unreasonable" and tossed out the man's life sentencing. The Justice Department argued that it had probable cause, but admitted it didn't acquire a proper warrant.
According to the court papers, the Justice Department actually landed a warrant to install the GPS device in the District of Columbia and within 10 days. Instead, the agents installed the device on the 11th day while in Maryland. The GPS data was used against him only in instances when the vehicle was on public streets. Essentially the Justice Department screwed up and convicted a man using evidence obtained by warrantless use of the GPS device.
"The Fourth Amendment protects the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,'" reads the court ruling. "Here, the Government’s physical intrusion on an 'effect' for the purpose of obtaining information constitutes a 'search.' This type of encroachment on an area enumerated in the Amendment would have been considered a search within the meaning of the Amendment at the time it was adopted."
But what does that mean for GPS-enabled devices like smartphones, tablets, laptops and even automobiles? Can officials still track these devices without a warrant? Walter Dellinger, the lawyer appealing the drug dealer's conviction, said the decision means that "almost any use of GPS electronic surveillance of a citizen’s movement will be legally questionable unless a warrant is obtained in advance."
To read the full scoop, download the PDF file from the Supreme Court's website here.
i am a little confused by your statement
I can't imagine for the life of me why the Supreme Court would rule against unwarranted GPS tracking.
makes me sick that he got out on this...
it should have been a lawsuit case, like the guy who was related to an important islam religious leader who got tracked for a while, took the bug out of his car, and had to give it back. that should have been the case, not against someone who is a real criminal.
all that said, i dont think all drugs should be illegal, but because he got a life for it, im assumeing its that harder stuff like cocaine, and not pot or lsd.
With this unwarranted GPS tracking, not only is this a unjustified search but it likely can criminal within itself. It certainly could be a invasion of privacy and likely other charges.
And guess who isn't getting my vote next election? Obama has proven time and time again that he cares nothing about human rights not even fellow Americans.
Well we all moan about not wanting to be tracked by the government, want our own privacy and basically not wanting to be china - then you disagree with something that rules in privacy's favour.
..re-read the quote that was attached to that statement and you'll get the sarcasm
Fixed for you. Citizen or not, the man has no frapping clue about the American Experience.
the tea party will have you burning books and banning rock and roll...
the supreme court should have acted on this a lot sooner, same with mobile gps or any other kind of tracking... they also need to catch up on Internet also and stop this mining of ip addresses attached to trackers thus proving you are all pirates. even if your not you are... or so sopa would have you believe.
seriously guys, wake up, your civil rights are under attack from government and big business...
its time to stand up for them, coz if you dont you will have none soon enough, regardless of the supreme court as you have already seen with Guantanamo... that aint legal but its still open and taking more prisoners every day...
Hmm well yes and no. From the Opinion on the court page 2.
in Maryland, agents installed a GPS tracking device on
the undercarriage of the Jeep while it was parked in a
public parking lot
So there was no trespass having to do with where the Jeep was parked. However it was indeed unconstitutional trespass because the government trespassed against Jones' effects. They clarify that the Jeep is the effect that is being trespassed in the decision.
This ruling may indeed lead to cases where IP mining without a warrant is deemed inadmissible in court.
IMHO, however, the ruling means little. If the FBI had sought the warrant, it seems that they probably would have gotten a warrant in this case. So, all this has done is given law enforcement a mandate that they cannot track a perp using GPS technology attached to that perp's vehicle without a warrant. In truly criminal cases, I doubt that it will be difficult to get a warrant.
As in this case, it is when law enforcement goes outside of the bounds established by the constitution that civil rights are violated.