Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCOTUS: GPS Trackers Are a Form of Search and Seizure

Posted by Soulskill on from the may-the-fourth-amendment-be-with-you dept.

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."

10 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. Like a breath of fresh air by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Like a breath of fresh air by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Like a breath of fresh air by dcw3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  2. So... by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:So... by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:So... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3

      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.

  3. "puts" by WillgasM · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  4. It's an improvement. by mr_mischief · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It's an improvement. by blue9steel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  5. Re:Don't ask, don't tell by Damarkus13 · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.