GPS Tracking Outlawed

Global positioning systems technology has advanced so far and so rapidly that society can hardly keep up. It has gone from simply helping drivers get around town to giving scientists the ability to predict an earthquake. It has helped companies manage their fleets as well as their assets, and it has helped governments regulate utilities and transportation. In recent years, GPS tracking devices have enabled authorities to monitor parolees and even capture suspects in the act of committing a crime. With so many capacities, there seems to be no end to what GPS can do, unless, of course, the courts step in to set some boundaries.

The Issue at Hand

As GPS technology has grown, so has its uses, some with devious intent. Some may or may not question its use in secretly tracking a spouse suspected of cheating or spying on an employee suspected of shirking his responsibilities, but who would question its use by law enforcement to track down and capture a criminal? The defendant, that’s who. And their argument is usually based on their right to privacy as declared in the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Suspects arrested through information obtained through GPS tracking without a warrant have won landmark cases based on this amendment.

Historical Cases

Even before GPS units, police and other law enforcement agencies used “bird-dog” tracking devices to follow individuals suspected of criminal activity. Lawyers quickly discerned that unrestricted use of such devices could lead to gross invasion of privacy by authorities. Two cases in particular laid the groundwork for later GPS legislation.

• In the 1983 United States vs. Knotts decision, the Supreme Court considered the necessity of obtaining a court order to install and monitor a bird-dog tracking device. In this case, the suspect was arrested after a tracking device placed in a jar of chemicals led authorities to an illegal drug lab. Though investigators had permission to place the device, they had no actual court order; however, the Supreme Court ruled that because the device was used in a public place, the suspect’s vehicle, “nothing in the Fourth Amendment prohibited the police from augmenting the sensory faculties bestowed upon them at birth with such enhancement as science and technology afforded them in this case.” In other words, the suspect’s privacy had not been violated.


• A similar case one year later brought to the fore the privacy issue. The defendant in United States vs. Karo was also suspected of being involved in illegal drug activity; this time, though police officer’s seized evidence from the suspect’s home after tracking a device placed in a chemical in his car. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that “indiscriminate monitoring of property that has been withdrawn from public view would present far too serious a threat to privacy interests in the home to escape entirely some sort of Fourth Amendment oversight.” The so-called “vehicle exemption” from the previous case became tenable at best.

Recent Rulings

More recent cases and rulings have once again raised alarms about the unwarranted use of tracking, be it through global positioning systems technology or otherwise. Two cases in particular are setting the precedent for future use.

• In 2012 the Supreme Court ruled in United States vs. Jones that authorities had violated Antoine Jones’ right to privacy by tracking him for a greater distance and a longer time frame than originally warranted in the court order. Antoine Jones was suspected of drug trafficking, and police had obtained a warrant to implement GPS tracking on his vehicles; however, the Court ruled that authorities had gone beyond a reasonable search and seizure. They fell short, though, of declaring the absolute necessity of a warrant before placing a GPS device on a suspect’s vehicle or possessions. That would be determined a year later by the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.


• The Third Circuit court ruled in United States vs. Katzin that law enforcement must indeed have a warrant based on probable cause before placing and/or monitoring any GPS tracking device on a suspect’s car. After investigating a string of Rite Aid burglaries in a three-state area, police kept coming across the name Harry Katzin. They placed a unit on his van and later found stolen merchandise in the van shortly after another reported robbery. Unfortunately, the evidence was deemed inadmissible because law enforcement did not obtain a warrant and were going on only a hunch. The Court of Appeals determined that there is almost no case where the lack of a warrant would be reasonable.

Defense attorneys have applauded these decisions regarding the restriction of GPS tracking, but the question remains. Will too much restriction tie the hands of law enforcement and let hardened criminals go free? Technology and law must work together to protect society.

GPS Tracking Outlawed