Court rules that sly GPS tracking isn't unlawful
On February 2, the 7th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, ruled against a defendant who claimed that the surreptitious placement of a GPS tracking device amounted to an unconstitutional search. From the court’s decision:
"The police had not obtained a warrant authorizing them to place the GPS tracker on the defendant’s car. The district judge, however, found that they had had a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity, and she ruled that reasonable suspicion was all they needed for a lawful search, although she added that they had had probable cause as well. The defendant argues that they needed not only probable cause to believe that the search would turn up contraband or evidence of crime, but also a warrant. The government argues that they needed nothing because there was no search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."
So the gist of it comes down to this. The fourth amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, but the judges ruled that the placement of a GPS tracking device without the suspect’s knowledge, does not qualify as a search of his car.
"This is the first time the seventh circuit has weighed in on this issue, which other circuits have split on. The court equated GPS tracking to police physically following a car, or monitoring safety cameras to follow a car, neither of which amounts to illegal search and seizure."
The court did note that wholesale surveillance of the entire population is another matter entirely.
"The police had not obtained a warrant authorizing them to place the GPS tracker on the defendant’s car. The district judge, however, found that they had had a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity, and she ruled that reasonable suspicion was all they needed for a lawful search, although she added that they had had probable cause as well. The defendant argues that they needed not only probable cause to believe that the search would turn up contraband or evidence of crime, but also a warrant. The government argues that they needed nothing because there was no search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."
So the gist of it comes down to this. The fourth amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, but the judges ruled that the placement of a GPS tracking device without the suspect’s knowledge, does not qualify as a search of his car.
"This is the first time the seventh circuit has weighed in on this issue, which other circuits have split on. The court equated GPS tracking to police physically following a car, or monitoring safety cameras to follow a car, neither of which amounts to illegal search and seizure."
The court did note that wholesale surveillance of the entire population is another matter entirely.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home