
How far is too far?
The capacity for a police department to surreptitiously affix a GPS (Global Positioning Satellite) unit under a suspect’s car and track the hapless individual for weeks at a time without his knowledge (and without a warrant) is not only raising the hackles of human rights activists—it’s also fostering disagreements amongst judges.
Either way, the Fourth Amendment needs an overhaul in this day of high-tech, advanced technology.
I suppose there were complaints about this same thing in a bygone era, when telephones were all the rage (land phones, not cell phones) and police figured out that if they tapped into someone’s phone line, they could recover secrets and private conversations (read: evidence) they would otherwise not have access to.
But they needed a warrant for that. And a warrant for searching someone’s premises. Approaching the court and seeking permission to invade the privacy of a suspect for the purpose of an investigation—assuming the police could provide adequate grounds for the request—added a welcome buffer into the mix.
But should the police require a warrant to put a GPS tracking device under someone’s car?
The courts are divided on the differences between long-term, and short-term surveillance.
Traditionally, the Fourth Amendment is held by the courts as not covering the trailing of a suspect due to the fact individuals have no expectation of privacy for actions exposed to public view.
But in July an appeals court overturned a drug trafficking conviction because the police used a GPS tracking device, hidden under the suspect’s SUV and so affixed without a warrant, to gather the evidence used to initially convict him.
And there is a difference, said the Court, between limited surveillance and prolonged surveillance—and how that impacts an individual’s rights for their overall movements to be private.
“Prolonged surveillance reveals types of information not revealed by short-term surveillance, such as what a person does repeatedly, what he does not do, and what he does ensemble,” wrote Judge Douglas Ginsburg, in a summary of his ruling published earlier this summer in The New York Times.
Read more…