Supreme Court Rules on Warrantless Tracking

It’s a question that has been tossed back and forth by courts for some time now with various results: Should police officers be required to obtain a warrant before placing a vehicle GPS tracking device on the car of a suspected criminal? Various lower courts have offered their opinions on this question, and those rulings have sometimes made the difference between conviction and release for the suspects in question. At stake are both the ability of the police to uphold the law and the fourth amendment rights of citizens.

Those in favor of warrantless GPS tracking argue that a vehicle GPS tracking device cannot offer police any information that they could not obtain simply by watching the vehicle. The device cannot see inside the car or tell police what a person is doing inside a garage where the vehicle is parked. It does, however, allow police officers to monitor the location of vehicles from a remote spot using fewer officers and fewer man hours. It has also been argued that GPS tracking of vehicles without a warrant should be allowed under the automobile exception, a provision which allows officers greater leeway when searching cars than they would have for people or homes.

Those against warrantless GPS tracking argue that the police should not be able to track the movements of private citizens without the regulation and structure provided by a warrant. Under the fourth amendment, citizens have the right to “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Without a warrant, police could hypothetically monitor the movements of a person indefinitely and without probable cause, which raises serious and frightening questions about privacy.

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of requiring the government to obtain a warrant in order to place a vehicle GPS tracking device on a person’s car. The ruling found that the automobile exception did not apply since a tracking device greatly extended the police presence past the time it would normally take to search a vehicle. It also found that probable cause did not negate the need for a warrant.

An ACLU spokesperson praised the ruling, saying that all Americans would benefit by requiring court supervision in order for police to use tracking technology to track citizens.

Google+
Supreme Court Rules on Warrantless Tracking