Tune in Live! Doc Thompson Begins 24 hour radio marathon to Benefit Oklahoma Tornado Victims

Government

Supreme Court Rules GPS Tracking Requires a Warrant

Jan. 23, 2012 12:11pm Liz Klimas

Supreme Court Rules GPS Tracking by Police Requires Warrant

GPS device located under car. (Photo: Jon Snyder/Wired)

WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — In a unanimous and precedent-setting ruling, the Supreme Court said Monday that police must get a search warrant before using GPS technology to track criminal suspects.

The GPS device helped authorities link Washington, D.C., nightclub owner Antoine Jones to a suburban house used to stash money and drugs. He was sentenced to life in prison before the appeals court overturned the conviction.

(Related: Check out this article about the case with a Blaze interview from a privacy expert.)

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said that the government’s installation of a GPS device, and its use to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a search, meaning that a warrant is required.

“By attaching the device to the Jeep” that Jones was using, “officers encroached on a protected area,” Scalia wrote.

All nine justices agreed that the placement of the GPS on the Jeep violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

Greg Nojeim, director of the Center for Democracy and Technology’s project on freedom, security and technology, said in an interview with The Blaze that the Supreme Court’s decision was “landmark”.

“It signals their willingness to protect privacy in the face of advancing technology,” Nojeim said.

Scalia wrote the main opinion of three in the case. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor.

Wired has more from Scalia:

“We hold that the government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search,’” Scalia wrote.

In a footnote, Scalia added that, “Whatever new methods of investigation may be devised, our task, at a minimum, is to decide whether the action in question would have constituted a ‘search’ within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Where, as here, the government obtains information by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area, such a search has undoubtedly occurred.”

Sotomayor also wrote one of the two concurring opinions that agreed with the outcome in the Jones case for different reasons.

Justice Samuel Alito also wrote a concurring opinion in which he said the court should have gone further and dealt with GPS tracking of wireless devices, like mobile phones. He was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

Here MSNBC describes difference in analysis by the justices that still ultimately lead them all to the same decision:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Nojeim also said that majority opinion of the Supreme Court placed an emphasis on that it was the pervasiveness of the tracking that stimulated the need for a warrant — not only the trespassing. Using this sentiment, he thinks that this could open the door for the potential of requiring a warrant on tracking cellphones as well, although this was not discussed by the high court.

A federal appeals court in Washington had overturned Jones’s drug conspiracy conviction because police did not have a warrant when they installed a GPS device on his vehicle and then tracked his movements for a month. The Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court. The case is U.S. v. Jones, 10-1259.

It is unclear if the precedent set today could affect other cases — like that of a California man who had two devices stuck under his vehicle — where police have used GPS tracking without a warrant. Nojeim said that in existing cases law enforcement will argue that it acted in good faith that a warrant wasn’t required.

Wired points out that the justices said “the present case does not require us to answer” if police use of GPS systems already installed by the owner would constitute trespassing and require a warrant. But, Nojeim points out, the Supreme Court decision does open the door for Congress to consider creating more specific legislation based on it.

“It laid down markers for Congress to consider,” Nojeim said.

Update: This story was updated to include information from Greg Nojeim of the Center for Democracy and Technology.

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (66)

beckyspatflaveredstew
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 10:04pm
If this ruling, would become the norm, hope would blossom.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
SERGEANTHOPPER
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 12:30pm
WHO’S OUT OF TOUCH AMERICA ? IT’S YOU ! This ruling is absolutely devastating because it requires probable cause and the courts made it retroactive . Let me give you some examples:
One: Cop : Hi Judge, we got a hot tip that Joe ( felon ) scumbag is going to do a home invasion tonight over drugs and money. I need to put a tracker on his car.
Judge: Sorry but no, you really don’t have enough PC.
Two: Cop: Hi Judge we got a tip that Tony Montana who is a suspected drug dealer is going to Texas to pick up a huge shipment of cocaine. I need to put a tracker on his car.
Judge: Sorry but no, you really don’t have enough PC.
Third and best: Cop: Hi Judge I got a tip that Joe the convicted violent sex offender has been stalking area Schools and playgrounds for his next victim. I need to put a tracker on his car. If we can put him in the area we can violate his parole and send him back to prison.
Judge: Sorry but no, you really don’t have enough PC.
My dearest John and Jane Q Citizen, Minus your safety all Law Enforcement does not and has never cared where you are or what your up too ! Never… OK retroactive means that Joe the child molester can appeal and win his freedom and gets to sue the cops over the tracker.
p.s. You can’t sue a Judge ! Nice.
by by now, I have to see my Lawer.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
the point
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 10:16am
You’re the solution to Obama pollution. Vote Republican in 2012.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Exiled
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 5:30am
Many seem to be under the impression that this ruling means that law enforcement cannot use the GPS devices. No, it just means that they’re required to get a WARRANT, first. Warrants are signed by judges. That makes the search legal and constitutional. In the cases mentioned in this article, I don’t believe any judge would have found reason to not sign a warrant for such a device. The devices would still have been attached and the bad-guys would still have been caught. The only difference now is a piece of paper (but a very important piece of paper, in my opinion.)

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
lakwttwuy
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 1:10am
“All nine justices agreed that the placement of the GPS on the Jeep violated the Fourth Amendment”
It is hard to believe that there were any law enforcement officers or prosecutors out there that sincerely did not know this! Really? We have to let this question waste the supreme court’s time?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
AzSage
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 11:00pm
Ok, now they need to invalidate the Patriot Act.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Fourthhorseman
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 9:39pm
Cops are janitors: they come after to clean up the mess. They don’t protect or defend anybody, you have to do that yourself. They really are overrated. I know this from experience as I happen to know a few. They are more concerned with keeping each other out of hot water than protecting your family. They usually don’t know much more than traffic law even though they are supposed to be their to protect us. They are arrogant, self-serving and usually don’t even know what the constitution says. In their opinion, that’s for the prosecutor to sort out.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Exiled
  Posted on January 24, 2012 at 5:34am
  I pity you and/or whatever law enforcement agency covers your area. My area is covered by a county Sheriff (and his deputies), and they all seem polite and knowledgeable. Yes, I expect them to come if I need assistance, but I don’t expect them to be sitting on my doorstep within seconds of me dialing 911. I suppose if I wanted to up my county taxes, I could pay for better coverage. As it is, I doubt any of my counties deputies would have tried something like this GPS thing. Honestly, I doubt they even have funding for such equipment!
  
  Report this comment
Cabreramiggs
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 9:30pm
Finally! A good decision made. Law enforcement truly does not follow the constitution.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Publius Novus
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 8:25pm
This was a pleasant surprise. Maybe they should look at the NDAA & the Patriot Act while they’re in such a good mood.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
UrbanCombatSurvivor
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:59pm
How the HELL did it require a Supreme Court decision for ANYONE to know you have to have a warrant to track, tap, or spy in any way on a citizen of the United States?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
common cents
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:40pm
Ron Paul is the only candidate that speaks this language.
Go Ron.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
4-The-Truth
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 4:15pm
Does that mean T-Mobile and Samsung need a warrant to put Carrier IQ tracking spyware on my phone?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Exiled
  Posted on January 24, 2012 at 5:35am
  Not until the government bails one of those companies out.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.