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."

6 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.

  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?

  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.