Supreme Court Hears Warrantless GPS Tracking Case
United States vs. Antoine Jones Case to be Heard Today
The Supreme Court will hear an important case today on the warrantless use of GPS tracking technology by law enforcement to monitor and track criminal suspects. The case involves convicted cocaine dealer, Antoine Jones, whose life sentence was overturned by the Washington D.C 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on the basis that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated.
Essentially, Antoine Jones’ attorneys argued that the actions of the investigators technically constituted an unreasonable search, since the warrant that they had obtained for the use of the GPS tracking device had expired before they installed it. The GPS device helped authorities link Jones to a suburban house that he used to stash close to 100 kilograms of cocaine.
The Obama administration is appealing the ruling that overturned the drug conspiracy conviction arguing that the data collected by the GPS device was obtained on public roads, and that people have no expectation of privacy concerning their travel on public streets. The appellate judges who threw out the case, said that law enforcement officers should have had a warrant, and pointed to the extended length of time – a month – that the device was used as a major factor in their decision. However, other appeals courts have ruled that search warrants aren’t necessary for GPS tracking.
Supreme Court Justices Hear the Arguments
According to a recent report from the Associated Press on the case:
The Supreme Court expressed deep reservations Tuesday about police use of GPS technology to track criminal suspects without a warrant.
But the justices appeared unsettled about how or whether to regulate GPS tracking, and whether they should look at other high-tech surveillance techniques in resolving this case.
The justices were taken aback when the lawyer representing the government said police officers could install GPS devices on the justices’ cars and track their movements without a warrant.
Justice Department lawyer Michael Dreeben said it would be better for lawmakers rather than judges to set limits.
He also sought to portray GPS use as one among many police tracking methods that do not call for a warrant. Police can go through people’s trash, obtain information about who they call, even follow them round-the-clock without a warrant, he said.
GPS devices are especially useful in early stages of an investigation, when they can eliminate the use of time-consuming stakeouts as officers seek to gather evidence, he said.
For all the unease the court voiced in its questions to Dreeben, the justices seemed equally torn in questions to Stephen Leckar, Jones’ lawyer, about how to impose limits on the police.
Essentially, the Supreme Court Justices are considering two related issues: first, whether a warrant is necessary before installing a GPS device; and second whether police should be allowed to use the GPS technology to track a vehicle. For now, they could determine that the installation requires a warrant, leaving the more complicated issues relating to tracking to another day.
A decision should come by spring.
Source: Huffington Post
Tags: GPS Technology, GPS Tracking, Law Enforcement, police, Privacy
Related posts:
- GPS Surveillance Case Goes to Supreme Court United States vs. Antoine Jones The United States vs. Antoine...
- Argument for the Use of GPS in Police Surveillance Landmark Supreme Court Case The Supreme Court will be hearing...
- Your Cell Phone Knows Where You Are Cell Phone Companies Selling Personal Information Perhaps this isn’t a...
