By Margaret Rock | Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:32 pm |
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that police must get a search warrant before using GPS technology to track criminal suspects, a strong stance in the growing debate over electronic tracking limits.
The case involves law enforcement's decision to place a GPS device on Washington, D.C., nightclub owner Antoine Jones' vehicle. Law enforcement tracked Jones' movements for a month, gathering evidence to convict him of conspiring to sell cocaine. The court sentenced Jones to life in prison before the appeals court overturned the conviction, saying the sheer amount of information collected violated the Constitution's Fourth Amendment.The Supreme Court's Monday ruling affirmed the lower court's decision, with all nine justices agreeing law enforcement's placement of the GPS on the Jeep violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said the government's installation of a GPS device, and its use to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a search, and in that case requires a warrant. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects personal privacy. Citizens have a right to be free of unreasonable government intrusion into their persons, homes, businesses, and property, whether through police stops on the street, arrests, or searches of homes and businesses. Commonly referred to as the "search and seizure" amendment, it focuses on places and items in which an individual has a legitimate expectation of privacy, protecting unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases. In arguments before the Supreme Court in November, the government's Michael R. Dreeben, a deputy U.S. solicitor general, said there are no constitutional limits to the government's ability to track people's movements in public, and Jones' car was followed on public streets. Jones' lawyer, Stephen C. Leckar was succinct is stating his perspective, saying, "If you want to use GPS devices, get a warrant." Scalia wrote the main opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Samuel Alito also wrote a concurring opinion in which he said the court should have gone further and dealt with GPS tracking of wireless devices, like mobile phones and Judge Sotomayor wrote the other concurring opinion. The ruling offers clarity to state governments which, operating without a federal framework, have created a varied set of laws governing law enforcement's usage of data gleaned from mobile devices. For example, California residents are subject to having their cell phones, tablets, and other electronic equipment searched without a warrant if law enforcement feels it may contain valuable evidence. On the other hand, judges in New York and Maryland ruled police need a warrant for such searches, pointing out that modern cell phones contain enormous amounts of data, and as such are subject to Fourth Amendment protections. Both the Supreme Court's ruling and the lower courts' struggle with these issues demonstrates the gap between advancing technology and legal precedents. Today's unanimous ruling is one step towards ensuring law enforcement will need more sufficient grounds, like a warrant, in order to employ the latest technological advancement, a decision that will likely affect lower court rulings for some time to come.
|
] |
CellReception.com |
CellRisk.com |
Appedia.com |
Tabletedia.com
[ 
] |
iTVedia.com