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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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).

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!