SCOTUS: GPS Trackers Are a Form of Search and Seizure

schwit1 writes: If the government puts a GPS tracker on you, your car, or any of your personal effects, it counts as a search—and is therefore protected by the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court clarified and affirmed that law on Monday, when it ruled on Torrey Dale Grady v. North Carolina (PDF), before sending the case back to that state's high court. The Court's short but unanimous opinion helps make sense of how the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, interacts with the expanding technological powers of the U.S. government. "The only theory we discern [...] is that the State's system of nonconsensual satellite-based monitoring does not entail a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. That theory is inconsistent with this Court's precedents."

Comments

Like a breath of fresh air

[Anonymous Coward]

Every once in a (great) while, the SCOTUS actually makes a ruling in line with the constitution. Thank you for being loyal to the American way instead of just another corrupt bunch on this specific day.

Re:Like a breath of fresh air

[Darinbob]

The issue in this case though involves a twice convicted sex offender being required to wear a tracking monitor. The lower courts thought that this didn't even count as a search, a decision rejected by the SCOTUS. Now the lower courts have to decide if this was a reasonable search or not. This is not a case of the government sneaking around to spy on someone or bypassing the (state) courts, everything was very clearly out in the open.

The SCOTUS has already ruled that getting onto private property in order to install a tracker was not supported without a warrant (even if this means sneaking into someone's automobile that's parked in a public place). So this current ruling feels like just a minor tweak. Now the tricky stuff coming up in the future: when is this tracking reasonable or not; and can you track someone w/o a warrant using publicly available information rather than GPS trackers.

Re:Like a breath of fresh air

[dcw3]

You clearly don't understand the difference between petty and grand larceny. Take the chip off your shoulder. You have zero evidence that the rich lie, cheat and steal at a rate higher than middle or low income people.

Just to clarify, the threshold in most of the U.S. is only $400, and hasn't changed in decades. From Wikipedia...
Grand larceny is typically defined as larceny of a more significant amount of property. In the US, it is often defined as an amount valued at $400 or more. In New York, grand larceny refers to amounts of $1,000 or more. Grand larceny is often classified as a felony with the concomitant possibility of a harsher sentence. In Virginia the threshold is only $5 if taken from a person, or $200 if not taken from the person.[38] The same penalty applies for stealing checks as for cash or other valuables.

Re:Like a breath of fresh air

[Dieselsauce]

The truth of the matter is that those best equipped to obtain power are typically also those worse equipped to wield it - and money is power my friend.

So...

[Greyfox]

Not to look a gift outbreak of common sense in the mouth, but how the fuck can GPS trackers be a form of search and seizure and civil forfeiture NOT be a form of search and seizure? Some measure of consistency in our right to be secure in our papers and shit would be nice.

Re:So...

[ganjadude]

in all contexts? no, perhaps not. in most however? yes.

get pulled over for some petty crime, better not have an expensive car because it will be taken

Re:So...

[Invidious]

There are two types of civil forfeiture:

There's the kind where they arrest you, take your stuff because it's evidence, or involved in a crime, and then, because it's involved in a crime, after you're convicted, they keep it. This is entirely reasonable in most cases and is not the kind that most people who talk about Civil Forfeiture are actually talking about. For one thing, you're actually convicted before they get it for keeps.

Then there's the kind where a cop pulls you over, finds ten grand in an envelope under your seat, takes it because you -might- be using it to buy drugs (or you just sold a bunch), not that there's any evidence indicating that, files suit -against the money-, and keeps it. Or the kind where your kid sold pot from your house and they take your house the same way. This is the kind of civil forfeiture that people complain about when they talk about it. This is utter bullshit.

Re:So...

[Invidious]

Yes, but that stuff is, without evidence to the contrary, -my- stuff, and should thus be protected. It comes under the 'effects' part of 'persons, houses, papers, and effects.'

Re:So...

[grimmjeeper]

Unfortunately, many searches leading to civil forfeiture are made when a person doesn't realize he can say no when the cop asks to search his car. When you grant permission, all the rules about warrants and exigent circumstances get pitched because you gave consent. If there was ever a need to inform people of their basic rights, it's when a cop asks to search your car for no reason. They should be forced to read you your rights when they ask so that you can say no with confidence.

Re:So...

[Jane Q. Public]

You are dangerously misinformed on this issue. The latter case mostly does not exist.

Uh... if that's what you think, GP might actually be more informed about the issue than you are.

I am reminded back when I first started reading electronic bulletin boards, and I found EFFector Online from EFF, and the pubication from EPIC, whatever that was called.

At the time, civil forfeiture was a big deal as it related to online crimes, and the publications were chock full of examples of abuse. Like the greenhouse operator who liked to order his annual shrubs at market using cash... stopped at the airport, and was deemed to be a drug dealer because of his old jeans and excessive cash.

He was never charged with a crime. He never had a forfeiture hearing. But he never got his $30,000 back, either.

There are LOTS of such stories, from very reliable sources. I would consider EFF to be one such.

Re:So...

[Jane Q. Public]

It's not unreasonable if you can convince a judge to sign a warrant.

Strictly speaking, that's not true either. There are an uncountable number of cases where judges were convinced to sign a warrant based on false statements or false evidence, for example.

So the warrant was not a legal warrant, and the search was therefore not legal, either.

Re:So...

[Kjella]

Not to look a gift outbreak of common sense in the mouth, but how the fuck can GPS trackers be a form of search and seizure and civil forfeiture NOT be a form of search and seizure?

It's a form of seizure, but the supreme court hasn't found it an unreasonable one. And it's been used for a very long time. Basically, the issue was that without forfeiture they had a hard time catching the owners of smuggling ships. As long as you can't establish them as an accessory to the crime or you have jurisdiction problems, they can legally provide the supplies while the criminals operate on an asset-less basis. So the solution was to declare the assets - in this case the ship - used in illegal acts forfeit, making it a risk and a cost to be used in crime. This goes all the way back to the British.

I've been reading some of the court cases and it seems the minority has been trying really hard to find tortured ways of getting out of their own past precedents as the cases become more and more unreasonable but the majority falls down on "we've approved of civil forfeiture for 200 years, we can't overturn that now". They really, really, really don't like interpreting an old law in a new way. So without acts of Congress saying this is not okay, I don't think anything will change.

P.S. Civil asset forfeiture puts the US way ahead of the UK as fascist country in my opinion, I'm not really even sure if it should qualify as an "innocent until proven guilty" system anymore since you can be robbed blind and need to prove your innocence to the court. It stinks to high heaven.

Re:So...

[Jane Q. Public]

Whining about an absurdly uncommon occurrence,

Even 10 times would far too often. And nobody was whining.

while ignoring the people who are being robbed every day

Who was ignoring this? Certainly not me, and I don't think anyone else.

Framing the debate as the guilty and the never charged, is terrible to the point of being a straw man, which makes your anti-civil-forfeiture position confusing.

Again, nobody did this. Not me, and not GP.

GP mentioned losing a house. There was an actual case like this in California. An innocent elderly couple lost their home and large plot of land to civil forfeiture because somebody had planted a few pot plants OUTSIDE their property line.

Ignoring the outrageous cases that do occasionally happen is no less erroneous than what you accused us of. Nobody should be treated like that.

---
"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own." -- Thomas Jefferson

"puts"

[WillgasM]

What if they just use the GPS tracker already on your dash or in your pocket?

It's an improvement.

[mr_mischief]

It's an improvement. This won't stop the use of such tactics, of course. Now they'll just get a warrant to tag your car with GPS tracking and shop around for the easiest judge to sign off on it. That's some protection.

Re:It's an improvement.

[blue9steel]

I'm actually totally ok with that. It's not that they shouldn't be using GPS, just that they should have to follow the correct steps.

This is why it's so vital

[fightinfilipino]

to support the EFF and all they do. donate now: https://supporters.eff.org/don...

Did anyone

[guibaby]

see the Duuhhhhh!!! at the end of the opinion.

Re:Don't ask, don't tell

[Damarkus13]

This ruling doesn't even have anything to do with planting a tracking device. It is in regards to an individual who has been convicted of multiple sexual offences who has served his time and is being required by the State of North Carolina to wear a GPS anklet for the rest of his life. He challenged that on 4th amendment grounds. NC argued successfully (at the state level) that this requirement is not a search. The SCOTUS disagreed and sent the case back to NC.

Jeez, RTFA.

So None At All

[wisnoskij]

"and is therefore protected by the Fourth Amendment"

We all know how much protection a constitutional law provides.