Supreme Court Rules GPS Tracking Requires a Warrant
- Posted on January 23, 2012 at 12:11pm by
Liz Klimas
- Print »
- Email »
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.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 586 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 372 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 372 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (66)
Dougral Supports Israel
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 3:09pmThis is a very good decision and the fact that it was unanimous shows that law enforcement was completely out of touch with the Constitution in this case.
Report Post »Wolf
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 7:34pmIf what you’re saying is correct, then any person being searched by TSA at an airport or roadblock would have valid reason to file charges for illegal search and, in some cases, siezures.
Report Post »Once again, we have a SCOTUS that is picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution to enforce, thereby legislating from the bench.
Wolf
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 7:59pm@Kife- Mittens is so agaisnt the Consitution the only difference between him and the Turd in DC now is skin color.
Report Post »Zeb
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 2:50pmThe 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.
IS THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND?
TSA Seems to think so.
GIVE THEM HELL SEN. PAUL
Report Post »bets
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 3:03pmAmen Zeb!!!
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 2:44pmNow, if they would just rule that our crotches Constitutionally protected areas and arrest the TSA.
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 2:51pmThat would be a dream come true; dispose of the TSA completely along with Homeland Insecurity.
Report Post »MarsBarsTru7
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 3:03pmYou know what though, arresting TSA employees shouldn’t even be a part of our dialogue. The ones that deserve to be arrested are the legislature and their appointees that have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They all take an Oath to uphold the Constitution. The only way we can stop these types of things from happening in the future is to set the precedent of actually prosecuting them for violating their oath. I guarantee that if Americans held these people to their legal responsibilities to uphold the Constitution there would be a far more strict observance of the rule of law and a restored liberty to our country.
Report Post »M1A2_Tanker
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 5:15pmMarsBarsTru7,
As Sworn Defenders of the U.S. Constitution TSA Agents are obligated to disobey unlawful orders. Arrest them all starting at the top.
Report Post »WeDontNeedNoSteenkinBadges07
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 1:31amRipley agrees with your assessment:
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q
Robert-CA
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 2:33pmI agree .
Report Post »BruceHenry
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 2:14pmIt’s about time these guys and gals got it right again! Now how about those random searches on the roads based solely on a number in your license plate?
Report Post »ClunkerT
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 2:28pmSome of these folks knew that Barack Hussein Obama was not a “natural born Citizen” and they still participated in his swearing in cermony although it was botched. I shudder every time I am around a person dressed in a black robe. Shame on them!! Congress made at least 7 attempts to change the Constitutional requirement for a candidate to be a “natural born Citizen” beginning in 2003 which means Congress also know that Barack Hussein Obama was not eligible to be POTUS based upon that requirement otherwise they would have never gone though the exercise to change it avoiding the amendment process. Shame on them! Because of these cowards we now have a potential Constitutional crisis of the century on our hands. It will all come to light sometime during this Presidential campaign process.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 2:41pm“I shudder every time I am around a person dressed in a black robe. ”
Man, you must hate Halloween, with all those little kids dressed as witches and wizards.
Report Post »Zeb
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 2:58pm@CLUNK
VIEW THIS!
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31muVB7ItBc&feature=related
THX-1138
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 2:09pmOK, this makes sense.
What the hell is going on?
Report Post »dgPehrson
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 1:42pmWow! Something useful came from the supreme court. Now all they need to do is to stop declaring amendments of the constitution unconstitutional.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 2:33pmDon‘t get too excited as I’m sure the feds can use some language in the Patriot Act to utilize this device if they can still do warrantless wire taps.
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 2:52pm@JRook – absolutly they will, the current usurper of the white house probably already has people at work on the matter.
Report Post »Exiled
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 5:26amRight, the Supreme Court didn’t rule that law enforcement CANNOT use such devices, they ruled that such devices can only be used WITH A WARRANT. Which, if there’s compelling evidence, shouldn’t be too hard to obtain.
Report Post »DD313
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 1:37pmUnanimous? What is being served in the Supreme Court cafeteria? Keep serving it!
Report Post »whatthecrazy
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 1:36pmSad that they should get praise for doing thier job that they swore to do, anyhoo Yea kudos kudos, braveesimo,go spc go spc go spc……………………………………………….
Report Post »2GodBeTheGlory
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 1:32pmI’m sure that SHEEPDOG69 and SUPERMANSDAD are upset about this ruling.
Report Post »Sheepdog69
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 2:20pmNope. I actually agree with it. If there is enough probable cause to warrant putting a tracker on a car, it should be good enough to get a search warrant to put the tracker on. I’m actually more comfortable knowing we will have the permission of the courts if we do it. Contrary to public opinion, cops dont just put trackers on everyday joes vehicle to see what he is doing. It’s usually a drug dealer and they are trying to find out where he lives, or where he stores his dope, etc. Does this post surprise you?
Report Post »2GodBeTheGlory
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 2:50pm@SHEEPDOG69,
Yes your post does indeed surprise me in that quite a few “officers” that I know would “break a law or two in order to get a ”bad guy“ off the streets”.
Report Post »Sheepdog69
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 2:09amWell, 2godbetheglory, you can say you know me…and I wouldn’t do that. It’s all a game sorta. It’s the crooks job not to get caught, and it’s my job to catch them. Sometimes they win and there is nothing I can do about it. But, they rarely quit being a crook and we eventually catch them at something else. We really only deal with about three percent of the population. We just deal with them over and over and over. Gets to the point that you know the names and birthdays of most of the people we deal with, because we deal with them so much. I must be honest, I don’t recall any of your posts, so I won’t make any comments there. The fact you answered my reply shows you are intelligent. The people on here that expect cops to be perfect, and then if they are not, advocate killing them and taking away all they have worked for, are the ignorant ones. They really need to learn the laws and how they apply. Love your screen name by the way. JOHN 15:13.
Report Post »2GodBeTheGlory
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 4:59pm@SHEEPDOG69
I am informed where most are not in the area of violent crime statistics that are not made public. For example a nearby city has at, best in the past 20 years, 18% to court tally from reported. If people understood what that number meant there would be outcry. Yes, I would agree that it’s the same ones over and over again for the most part and have not figured out why “judges” let some of them out when they know there going to see them in less than a month, again and again and again for the same stupid stuff. Must be the insanity rule.
I’ve witness “investigators” that use, how should I describe it, less than optimal methods on those that are clearly innocent of any crime and have witness locals tell military that there license is invalid because its from out of state, what is worse is they actually believe it. I’ve seen elected “officers” that are no better than the common thugs. If you’ve been in for anytime, you know there are good and then there are extremely bad, and then you have the “just dead weight”. The ones that I have know that are good, well, they really are not focused upon if you know what I mean.
Report Post »Arshloch
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 1:32pmYee Haa! Right on.
Report Post »P8riot
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 1:31pmLOVE IT! I remember in law school they were talking about this topic and my liberal professors didn’t think the Supremes would rule this way… but you GOTTA LOVE SCALIA!
Report Post »balrog25
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 3:00pmI do. I guess the lib justices also thought past their beloved BHO administration. Hopefully we can get enough republican primary voters to embrace the Contstitution, then enough of the whole voting public to pick a constitutionally leaning electoral college.
Report Post »Gryphon Moor
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 1:11pmNow how is a fascist president supposed to take over a country if rulings like this keep happening? Have to get rif of that judicial branch somehow. Add that to the agenda. Maybe the brown shirts over as Justice can help with this. Call Eric, have him send some boys over there to…uh, help them understand where this is going. We still have room in the camps…
Report Post »mscott2112
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 1:10pmAlthough I am delighted by the decision of the Supreme Court, I believe law enforcement will continue to usurp our natural rights (ie 4th amendment) through the Patriot Act (law enforcement agents can write their own search warrants) and the National Authorization Defense Act (detain lawful residents and citizens indefinitely).
Report Post »Balthazor
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 2:49pmPlease cite the text of the Patriot Act which enables LE officers to “write their own warrants”. I won’t be holding my breath waiting…because if I did I would die.
Report Post »Bluedog78
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 6:36pm“law enforcement agents can write their own search warrants” you get my vote for the stupidest poster of the day!!!!!
Here’s a little bit of knowledge for you, they always write their own warrants you idiot!!!!
Report Post »Sheepdog69
Posted on January 24, 2012 at 2:14amYou local state, county and city cops have NOTHING to do with the Patriot Act. That’s a federal act. The Feds are generally bozos. And FYI, yes, cops write search warrants, which a judges reviews before signing to make sure it is legal. If there is a valid warrant, then there is no violation of the 4th amendment. 4th amendment doesn’t protect you from ANY search and seizures, just illegal ones. And no, you don’t get to decide which ones are legal. That’s why we have courts.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 1:09pmI wonder how this will effect .. OnStar and their plans to sell information.
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 1:55pmTHAT is why I will not have onstar……….
Report Post »hunter1riley
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 1:08pmExcellent ruling. A nice blow to the expanding police state.
Report Post »Hyena
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 1:07pmAlthough this is good news, what about “the little black boxes” they intend to build into new cars?
Report Post »Locked
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 1:04pmGood ruling, I definitely agree with them on this.
Report Post »qzak491
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 1:00pmThe Supreme court seems to be on the right track for regaining their status as Supreme Court.
Report Post »NewLife56
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 12:29pmIn a unanimous and precedent-setting ruling,
Is it just me or is even the “so-called” Liberal judges making good rulings so far? This is about the 3rd unanimous ruling made by them with Kegan on the court. John Roberts is doing a good job as Cheif Justice in making a convincing case for the rulings.
Report Post »Baddoggy
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 12:26pmI do not for the life of me understand why it could even get to the Supreme Court…It is spelled out in the fourth Ammendment to the Constitution…You know, that piece of paper that Barack wipes his backside with…The one that only about 5% of the population has ever read…You know, that antiquated nonsense that our Nation was founded on…Yea, that piece of paper…
A refresher for you who do not know what the Fourth Ammendment 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.
How on earth the TSA even exists is beyond me too!
Report Post »Ron Paul 2012 for Freedom!
Baddoggy
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 1:18pmYea…They think Newt is a Constitutionalist…Now that is really messed up. That mna does not know what the Constitution is!
Report Post »SpankDaMonkey
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 12:23pm.
Report Post »I’m sure Holder will have Obama call his two appointees Soreismyhole & Gagan to voice his disapproval……
DD313
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 1:40pmIsn’t that second one Gorgon?
Report Post »TeaBill
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 12:23pmSeems they finally read from the proper rule book!
Report Post »DrFrost
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 12:19pmWe need a lot more judgments like this so police quit searching smart phones and laptops as well. Especially at the border. Where does it say in the constitution that the limits we’ve placed on the federal government somehow disappear at the border?
Report Post »lodgerat
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 1:28pmDon’t forget about sneak and peek. They were designed for terrorist but only three sneak and peek warrants have been issued for terrorist suspects and the rest have been for drug cases. Thank you President Bush. By the way, the three warrants represent less than 1% of all that were issued.
Report Post »lijjo
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 12:16pmThank you Supreme Court for protecting our Constitutional Rights.
Report Post »SpankDaMonkey
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 12:20pm.
Report Post »Hold on don’t go getting all excited. They still have to deal with Obama Care…..
Skippy Toes
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 12:23pmAmen.
Report Post »