Ruling on GPS Tracking Devices

djembe2k writes "Score one for civil liberties. The NY Times is carrying a wire story (free reg. required, yadda) reporting that the Supreme Court of Washington state ruled today that a warrant is required by police to use GPS tracking devices to track suspects. A warrant actually was obtained in the case at hand, but the prosecutors argued that they hadn't really needed one, and they lost on this point. Here's the full text of the ruling."

Comments

Registration NOT required

[gatesh8r]

Look here.

No Reg Links

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly people, why keep linking to the "reg required" links?

NYTimes Story
Alternate story

Hmm

[wmspringer]

Not sure what I think about this. On the one hand, I have to favor any ruling that increases privacy. On the other hand, what IS the difference between using a GPS device to track someone and just following him around? Is it merely that it allows someone to be tracked without significant effort or expense, thus expanding how much information can be collected with limited resources?

Re:Hmm

[prospero14]

what IS the difference between using a GPS device to track someone and just following him around?

According to the nyt article, the ruling states that a warrant is required to attach a GPS device to a suspect's vehicle. I think there is a clear philosophical (and constitutional) difference between following someone around a placing an electronic bug on their car. Thus this ruling is not just about privacy, but also about the sanctity of private property.

As surveilence technology becomes more prevelant and more sophisticated, this ruling may be an important precedent indeed.

Re:Hmm

[timeOday]

Sure, and the difference between a bottle rocket and an bazooka is "just" a bigger bang.

Some people can justify any invasive use of technology by arguing that exactly the same thing could be accomplished, if only we had a police officer to monitor every citizen, so it must be OK. A funny argument, because nobody in their right mind wants to live in a society where every citizen is shadowed by a cop for no reason.

The question isn't whether police have the "right" to do this; the question is whether "We The People" feel like telling our police forces to use this tactic, or not. There is nobody to tell us (collectively) that we must.

Re:Hmm

[David Price]

The opinion addresses your question:

[Note: the Court of Appeals is the lower court being overruled here]

The Court of Appeals also held that use of the GPS devices was merely sense augmenting, revealing information that Jackson exposed to public view. The court noted that law enforcement officers could legally follow Jackson on his travels to the ministorage compartment and the two gravesites. We do not agree that use of the GPS devices to monitor Mr. Jackson's travels merely equates to following him on public roads where he has voluntarily exposed himself to public view.

It is true that an officer standing at a distance in a lawful place may use binoculars to bring into closer view what he sees, or an officer may use a flashlight at night to see what is plainly there to be seen by day. However, when a GPS device is attached to a vehicle, law enforcement officers do not in fact follow the vehicle. Thus, unlike binoculars or a flashlight, the GPS device does not merely augment the officers' senses, but rather provides a technological substitute for traditional visual tracking. Further, the devices in this case were in place for approximately two and one-half weeks. It is unlikely that the sheriff's department could have successfully maintained uninterrupted 24-hour surveillance throughout this time by following Jackson. Even longer tracking periods might be undertaken, depending upon the circumstances of a case. We perceive a difference between the kind of uninterrupted, 24-hour a day surveillance possible through use of a GPS device, which does not depend upon whether an officer could in fact have maintained visual contact over the tracking period, and an officer's use of binoculars or a flashlight to augment his or her senses.

Re:Hmm

[afidel]

Actually it was the Supreme Court of the United States in Kyllo V. U.S. that the majority stated:

"Thus, obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the home's interior that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area constitutes a search"

This can be logically extended to cover any activity not occouring in full public view and to any technological augmentation of the police's natural abilities. That case was arguably the most important one heard by this supreme court because they basically decided that advancement of technology does not give the police an unlimited liscense to observe the populace.

Re:Hmm

[Spazmania]

what IS the difference between using a GPS device to track someone and just following him around?

Its like the difference between Junk Mail and Spam.

It costs quite a bit of money to send junk mail, so there is a natural limiter on how much is sent. Moreover, its traceable so folks sending junk mail don't get too egregious with fraud.

Spam on the other hand, is mostly fraudulent and because its cheap to generate, it arrives in an unmanageable deluge.

Tailing someone is expensive. You have to have an officer or two in their own vehicle. You also can't do a whole lot of it... Its conspicuous. Folks notice, wonder what the cops are up to, and start asking questions.

The GPS device is comparativly cheap. Once installed, you can passively watch a person's comings and goings for months. And it doesn't stick out like a cop car does. If they don't need a warrant, what's to stop them from tracking every person who looks at them cross-eyed? And if you seem to spend time at an odd location, well, that's a place the cops should check out, now isn't it?

The caselaw has a more pragmatic viewpoint: without a warrant, look but don't touch. The moment you want to attach or open or do anything like that, you need a warrant.

Sadly, this means that the automated floating police cameras from the sci fi movies would be A-OK for use without a warrant.

Re:Hmm

[ScrewMaster]

Yes, and hopefully by requiring a warrant they require that the judiciary be involved in any police surveillance activities using GPS: that, after all, is the point of having a warrant. A judge is supposed to always be in the loop to determine if what the police are proposing to do with a suspect is legal, just, and/or necessary. Judges aren't perfect, of course, but that's a hell of a lot better than just letting the cops do whatever they please. The police, of course, resent that oversight because they perceive it as being invasive, after all, who wants to have someone looking over their shoulder? Perhaps they should look to their own feelings in that regard before they go planting GPS boxes in people's cars.

How could this be enforced?

[revividus]

What would prevent using the GPS without a warrant, and simply not crediting its use?

OTOH, do I want the police to have to wait to get a warrant before they can use this technology to trace, say, an actual violent criminal?

It's not something I've given a lot of thought to, I admit, but it seems the better this sort of technology gets, the more difficult it will become to legislate how it is used.

Re:How could this be enforced?

[stevezero]

> OTOH, do I want the police to have to wait to get a warrant before they can use this technology to trace, say, an actual violent criminal? Yes, you do. Warrants require at least PROBABLE CAUSE to be shown to an independent magistrate. Warrants (in theory) keep the police out of the average joe's hair, and doesn't allow them to use GPS on YOU. I'm all in favor of this ruling. Technology may change, but the basic rights and freedoms that we enjoy don't.

Re:How could this be enforced?

[www.sorehands.com]

What would prevent using the GPS without a warrant, and simply not crediting its use?

That would come from investigations. If they have information about something, then you as the defense, will have to determine where the information came from and if they broke the law.

OTOH, do I want the police to have to wait to get a warrant before they can use this technology to trace, say, an actual violent criminal?

An accused violent criminal. Keep in mind, this is happening before the guilt is determined.

Obviously committed a crime?

[n0nsensical]

It's not the job of the police to determine whether someone is guilty of a crime; that's what juries are for.

Re:Obviously committed a crime?

[n0nsensical]

Even so, there's a difference between obviously having committed a crime and being suspected of having committed a crime.

Before we get carried away

[caitsith01]

What we're talking about here is the police actually going to your car and placing a tracker on it. It seems to me that there is a significant difference between this and, say, using an inbuilt navigation system in your car to track you.

My view is that, whereas the first option might be ok in some circumstances with a warrant, the real danger to liberties is when the second option starts to become viable. If the police are investigating a specific crime, and they have evidence that leads them to suspect you, then they will be able to convince a judge to let them track you and gain a warrant, which is pretty benign so long as proper processes are followed and there is enough transparency to monitor their activities. What would be scary would be if they could just check up on anyone, any time, because we all have GPS in our cars or phones and implanted in our brains.

What will be interesting will be to see how the two scenarios are construed by the courts: is it a more serious matter to track someone using their own GPS than it is to place a tracker on their vehicle, or vice-versa? I hope the bar is set higher for the use of someone's own GPS device, or at least set to the same height. It is all to easy to envisage a police policy arguing that there is no harm is using the GPS system to 'check' where people are without their knowledge - kinda how the compulsory location identification technology in phones is justified because it lets emergency services find idiots who phone 911 and then fail to give their location. Once there is some degree of ambiguity the system is open to all kinds of abuse. Therefore I think the best solution would be for a warrant to be required for any kind of tracking to occur.

It's great to see the law actually adapt to a new scenario with some degree of success, anyway.

It's Probably Worth Noting

[Farley Mullet]

The controlling law here is the Washington State Constitution, not the United States Constitution. Indeed, from the decision:

Jackson does not claim or suggest in his petition for review that the Fourth Amendment was violated. Accordingly, there is no issue before us under the Fourth Amendment.

So the force of this decision ends at the border of Washington State.

Re:Civil liberties?

[Igmuth]

Ummm.. what are you talking about? "GPS is publicly available information..."

What does that mean in this context? They're not just sitting there with a handheld reciver getting a signal from the sats. They actually placed a GPS reciever ON the guy's car.
This is a step past putting a bumper beeper on the car and following him from a distance with it(which requires a warrent AFAIK). This enabled them to let him drive for a few days, and then they could retrive the device and download all his trips.

Mind you, I think this is a very good use of technology, as long as it is regulated by warrents(as was decided).

Re:Civil liberties?

[caitsith01]

"the liberty to break the law"

This is a totally facetious argument. You can justify any excess by making stupid laws and then saying that 'liberty' doesn't extend to allowing people to break the law.

In fact, the liberty to break the law is essential. If you have no choice about the matter, you're not really being good, just controlled. People shouldn't commit crimes because they don't want to commit crimes, not because the police have a tracking implant placed in everyone's head at birth to monitor their thoughts and actions.

Furthermore, I don't see how the judge is making an arbitrary distinction. What is the difference between this and asking for a wiretap or search warrant?

Not about them using it

[stratjakt]

It's really about the tracking data obtained being admissible in court.

So there's a murder, a body dumped in the woods. The cop finds out through a GPS device on your car that your vehicle drove from the victims apartment to the woods right after the murder.

Without a warrant to obtain that data, the judge throws this evidence out. Otherwise it would be a violation of your rights. There's very little a cop can do to you without a warrant, they can't step onto your property, peer through your windows to see whats going on.

A more extreme example you'd see on "Law and Order", I suppose.

Potheads who grow their own are paranoid about cops patrolling the neighbourhoods with heat-sensing cameras, looking for the "hot" houses - which would be a tip that there's some lamps running in there. Or watching power bills for extra usage. They can't - they've tried and judges have thrown it out. You need a warrant first. Public property is fair game, though, and they can go through your trash once it hits the public curve.

Anyhow, that's getting off topic. Point is, this is no shock. Without a warrant a cop is limited to what he sees in public property, he can't go onto your property or through your car without permission.

With exceptions (that they love to exploit) like they can search a trunk of a car if there's a safety concern. They like to pull over suspected dealers, play "hey now I think your exhaust might be leaking, we need to look in the trunk for your safety!"... Though a good lawyer chews such actions up in court.

By and large, Judges are very pro-citizen and very anti-cop. They were all attorneys or DAs and know the games they play, and aren't impressed.

What are we talking about again? Oh yeah. GPS. Dont worry about the local LEOs slipping one into your pocket and watching you. Thats federal black helicopter shit (and if you get the feds on your case all bets are off)

Tampering with property - tresspass?

[caitsith01]

I was wondering if this might actually constitute tresspass to property, as they are messing with your car without your knowledge or consent and without necessarily believing that you are guilty of anything.

The police do not, for instance, have the ability to enter your home without your consent in the absence of a warrant, so how is this different? If an ordinary citizen did it they would be guilty of tresspass for sure.

Judge OK..RTFA!

[mabhatter654]

The cops PLANTED a GPS tracker on the guys car to keep tabs on him at all times. Fortunately this time, and properly, they got a court's permission first. All the judge did was verify that it did indeed require a warrant for that activity.

When you realize that most new cars have GPS as well as cellphones, the requirement of the State to get permission to aquire the data BEFORE THE FACT is extremely important. After all, without such oversite the abuse is enourmous. Mess with the local deputy's daughter and a dead body just might be found near where you made out last night! Get the idea. You were there for way to long, so you must have commited the crime, right? Unrestricted access opens up all new ways of setting honest people up. There's nothing special about granting GPS for someone who's already a suspect and you would search their house or grounds. It's only 15 minutes of paperwork to protect our freedom!

And that's really the issue here. With the laughablely low standards for warrants these days [in car faxes, phone-a-judge, patriot? act] , is there really any reason NOT to simply follow the few procedures we have left? We expect tripliate paperwork for the simplest screw on a FAA certified aircraft, how much dicipline should we expect from a man with a GUN comming after ME or YOU! We might be KILLED too!

posting without reading?

[frovingslosh]

Read the ruling, the court makes it pretty clear.

They even "get it" , that if a warrant isn't required here it isn't required at all, meaning that the government is completely free to put a GPS device on you and everyone else for the purpose of tracking everything you and they do. That is hardly freedom (the ruling even goes into why it would infringe freedom) and so the warrant is required.