Police GPS Tracking Hinges on Warrant Issue
Massachusetts High Court Says Warrant First, GPS Tracking Next
A Cape Cod man who challenged police over their right to track him with GPS vehicle tracking technologies, has lost his appeal before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. He is back in jail facing a 10- to 12-year prison term for trafficking and distributing cocaine.
In September, the state’s highest court upheld the conviction of Everett Connolly, in a highly-publicized and potentially precedent-setting case about GPS tracking.
In Commonwealth vs. Everett Connolly, police suspected that Connolly was dealing drugs, so they obtained a warrant and placed a vehicle tracking device inside his minivan while it was parked at his apartment. Not knowing his vehicle was being secretly tracked by police, Connolly made a trip to New York for an alleged drug buy. Police followed him remotely on the real-time GPS tracking device and when he returned to Massachusetts, police stopped him on a highway, seized the van and found a significant amount of cocaine (124 grams). He was convicted in 2006, but Connolly appealed on the grounds that the warrant the police used to plant the vehicle tracking device was not valid.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the police in this case did legally track the subject using a vehicle tracking device. It concluded that police could even enter into a private citizen’s vehicle or break into it if covert placement of the vehicle tracking device was necessary for an investigative purpose. The only catch: a warrant is needed. The Supreme Court also pointed out that individuals should be protected from excessive or constant government monitoring. A 15-day limit was put on warranted GPS tracking. Regular search warrants expire after seven days.
While investigating the Connolly appeal, My FOX 25 News Boston, interviewed Steven Moehling, Vice President of Sales for LandAirSea Systems Inc. in Woodstock, IL. about the advances in GPS tracking technology; and the station road tested the vehicle tracking system manufacturer’s GPS Tracking Key, the company’s most popular vehicle tracking device, in a news segment.
Following the outcome of the Massachusetts case, Moehling concludes that great strides are being made in the criminal justice system. Massachusetts is the latest of three states setting precedent on the use of GPS tracking in law enforcement. Vehicle tracking, Moehling believes, is proving itself in legal circles as sound evidence in law enforcement investigations.
“The recent case of Commonwealth vs. Connolly addresses the legality of placing the GPS device without a warrant, but does not question the validity of the GPS information. This is because the criticism of GPS tracking reliability in the courtroom has been unsuccessfully challenged in several precedent-setting cases. As a manufacturer, we are pleased with the validation the courts extend to GPS tracking technology. In regards to the warrant requirements addressed in this case, I believe this to be a state’s rights issue and should be addressed as such.”
GPS tracking laws vary from state to state, based on local interpretations of the probable cause standard.
Just last May, two different states of appeals found on opposite sides of the issue. In New York, justices voted for GPS tracking similar to the case in Massachusetts. It said a warrant was needed for GPS tracking. In Wisconsin the high court said a warrant is not needed for police to legally use GPS vehicle tracking.
Where Debate is Headed
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against “unreasonable search and seizure.”
It is generally accepted by the courts that when police secretly plant a vehicle tracking device on a car, it is not an invasion of privacy, as long as the vehicle was parked in the open when the vehicle tracking device was placed on it and the vehicle is being tracked in a public place, where law enforcement has a right to be. Courts view GPS-based vehicle tracking as a modern, high-tech substitute for physically following a car or monitoring its travels with safety cameras.
Regarding unlawful seizure, there is disagreement. Some courts have concluded that placing a vehicle tracking device on a vehicle does not qualify as seizure, because the vehicle tracking device does not deprive the vehicle owner use of his property.
Others, like the Massachusetts court, believe covert GPS tracking is a seizure, because police use private property, in this case a vehicle, to obtain information for their own purposes.
LandAirSea’s Moehling takes no side on the issue, but feels it is important for state courts to set rules about how police can monitor suspects with GPS tracking devices. The warrant seems to be a key issue in law enforcement’s lawful use of GPS tracking. Does that mean adequate proof must be provided to a judge and a warrant obtained before the vehicle tracking device is placed? The issue remains a “slippery slope.”
GPS tracking has passed a litmus test, moving from suspected “junk” technology to a proven, police investigative tool. What is yet to be determined is the fair and delicate balance between police evidence-seeking and personal intrusion.
Source: The Boston Globe
Tags: Commonwealth vs Everett Connolly, GPS Tracking, Massachusetts, warrant
No related posts.
August 28th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
[...] http://www.gazette.net/stories/03032…4137_32553.php http://www.landairsea.com/gps-tracki…warrant-issue/ It is a shame that some would post such controversial messages without first doing a bit of [...]