Does Warrantless GPS Tracking of People by the Police Violate the Fourth Amendment??

L

LanceOregon

Moderator
Police are more and more attaching GPS tracking devices to the vehicles of suspects in criminal investigations. However, state laws are inconsistent across the USA over their use. Some states require that police obtain a warrant in order to install a GPS and use it to track a person. Many other states, however, have no such requirement for a warrant to be issued by a court.

In those states, the police can simply install a GPS system on the vehicle of anyone they wish, and then monitor where they go 24 hours of every day. Since the US Supreme Court has yet to hear a GPS case appeal yet, no nation-wide precedent has been set regarding whether its use without a warrant constitutes an unreasonable search under the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.

What do you think? Should police be required to get a warrant before they can know where you are going in your car all the time? Many police feel that the GPS has become such an important tool, that they should be able to use it based solely on their own discretion. But is that enough to safeguard against potential abuse??

Some police have said that the GPS is much like a police car tagging along behind you, always monitoring your movements. Should the police not be able to so easily do that?

Others argue, though, that since it is secretly installed on your own private property ( your automobile ), that it is also an illegal invasion of your privacy if done without a warrant. Should a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy" include not having the government monitor where they go all the time in their car? Some have also argued that it is not that much different than obtaining a warrantless wire-tape.

Here is a news article all about this subject:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/18/gps.tracking/index.html?eref=rss_topstories


This is what the Fourth Amendment says:

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.

.
 
What's the difference between this and a undercover officer tailing you? They're not likely to waste the money and resources to actually have a guy tag your car with a GPS box unless the have the Reasonable Cause that you are worth the time and effort.


Joke would be on them anyway when I go 4 wheeling and the stupid box falls off. They'd be wondering why I've been out in the desert for 4 days straight... lol
 
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.
Click to expand...

I'm a literalist. What is being searched or seized? Nothing.
So, simply, no- it is not a violation of the 4th amendment.
 
Tough call. I always err on the side of more freedom and less government interaction with people's lives, so I say yes, it is a violation.
 
Would it be ok for someone to attach GPS units to cop cars and keep track of where the cops are?
Click to expand...


That's a lot like asking if it would be OK for civilians to execute people or wage war. It's simply not an accurate analogy. The rules are different for government and civilians.


You can say it's not OK to use the GPS devices but it's NOT a 4th amendment issue.
 
Well if you're looking for reasons to panic, DC police are now getting readers to scan everyone's license plates to see who's on the watch lists and who's driving a stolen car.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=596&sid=1461567

Of course the Snivel Libertarians are upset.

No word yet if they're also upset about dogs sniffing out convicts' cell phones without a warrant...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/18/prison.cellphones/index.html

be afraid...be very afraid...

Or just don't do bad things and draw the law down upon you. :rolleyes:
 
Them placing a devise on your car would more likely go against the 5th instead of the 4th. With subscribtion services like on-star, Lowjack, Garmin, ect, and cell phones being required to have GPS in them most of the time LE doesn't need to put a devise on your car.
 
I think it sounds like a valid LE tool. It also does NOT sound at all like an "unreasonable search or seizure."

But as we've seen, without serious checks in place, it will be abused by the government. So I think only with a warrant would I tolerate this practice in my community. Sounds like something to talk to your state legislators about...
 
That's a lot like asking if it would be OK for civilians to execute people or wage war. It's simply not an accurate analogy. The rules are different for government and civilians.
Click to expand...

It's not ok for police to execute people and wage war either but that's a different direction than where I was heading. My question was serious though but perhaps I shouldn't have simply inverted it. Let me rephrase it. Would it be legal for anybody to put a GPS tracking unit on somebody else's vehicle?
 
FWIW, folks, I used to do that all the time, back in the day. Of course, I used a radio transmitter and directional receiver. That was back in the days before GPS. No requirement for a warrant, unless the install was to be made on private property.:p
 
I wouldn't like it if it was done to me, but it is legal and there does not appear to be a good basis for the Supreme Court to find otherwise...
 
DC police are now getting readers to scan everyone's license plates to see who's on the watch lists and who's driving a stolen car.
Click to expand...

I've done ride alongs with the local PD's in my area, and checking plates at random is common practice. They're even running plates on the merit that the car is a POS and might have a false/stolen registration sticker on their expired plate. So now they're testing a scanner which will allow the police to do this more efficiently, not much changes here.

Unless an expired registration is a primary offense in your jurisdiction, they still need a valid reason to stop you (speeding, traffic violation, motor code violation, etc).


Or monitor your DSL/Cabel line
Click to expand...

That's infringement of the 4th, clear as day. Monitoring my internet usage is no different to a search of my laptop inside of my personal residence. That takes a lot more than Reasonable Cause to get approved.
 
What is being searched or seized when they put a listening device on a phone line?
Click to expand...

Phone lines and internet connections are the modern-day equivalent of "papers and effects." And listening in on them is definitely analogous to a "search" of the same. If the Constitution were written today by the same men, they'd be protected...arguing otherwise is no different than those that argue that the second amendment only protects muskets.

As for a GPS device on a car...well, I'm torn. The privacy advocate in me has a huge problem with it, and it smacks of Big Brother, but at the same time it's really no different than having an officer tail you. Which isn't a violation of the fourth amendment. All it does is save manpower. I don't like it, and I don't support it, but I don't think it's unconstitutional.
 
Where does the theory of a "right to privacy" come from? This isn't a search and seizure issue. It could be a clear violation of a citizen's right to privacy, though. (If there is such a right.)

As others have said, all cell phones have a GPS locator in them, and you can't turn off the "911" GPS tracking feature..you can enable them so that folks other than 911 can track you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top