WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court is considering whether police use of GPS devices to track criminal suspects requires a judge's advance approval.
The case being argued Tuesday could have implications for other high-tech surveillance techniques in the digital age.
The Obama administration is appealing a ruling that threw out the drug conspiracy conviction of Antoine Jones of Washington because FBI agents and local police installed a GPS device on Jones' car and collected travel information without a search warrant.
The government argues that people have no expectation of privacy concerning their travel on public streets.
The GPS device helped authorities link Jones to a suburban house used to stash money and drugs. He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison before the federal appeals court in Washington overturned the conviction.
The appellate judges said the authorities should have had a warrant and pointed to the length of the surveillance -- a month -- as a factor in their decision.
An unusual array of interest groups backs Jones, including the Gun Owners of America, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the American Civil Liberties Union and an association of truck drivers. The groups say GPS technology is much more powerful than the beeper technology police once employed in surveillance.
But the Justice Department says the GPS device is no different from a beeper authorities used, with the high court's blessing in 1983, to help track a suspect to his drug lab. The court said then that people on public roads have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
The Justice Department said GPS devices are especially useful in early stages of an investigation, when they can eliminate the use of time-consuming stakeouts as officers seek to gather evidence.
Other appeals courts have ruled that search warrants aren't necessary for GPS tracking.
The justices will be considering two related issues, whether a warrant is needed before installing the device or using the GPS technology to track a vehicle.
20 comments:
They should not be able to use that because then it comes down to just following someone around until they mess up, and the fact that it would eliminate many hours of stake outs... Well that's kinda their jobs, what they signed up for and get paid for. I do agree that with a warrant, in extreme circumstances that is necessary.
If the police has good evidence to back up their knowledge of any wrongdoings and tracking the people down, I don't see why it is a problem. Of course, there might be some small mistakes but it's much better to take that risk and to keep the country a safer place. Besides, unless if one is really suspicious looking, there shouldn't be a big problem with police getting the wrong people. With the terrorist attacks and other threats, no one can be too safe nowadays.
This is ridiculous. Allowing the government to track someone's every move is not only an extreme invasion of privacy, but it also opens the door to an unlimited amount of potential government surveillance into the lives of every citizen. Where in the Constitution grants them the right to invade the privacy of people's personal lives? Today's government is sickening. They continue to spit in the face of our Founding Fathers by having no respect whatsoever for the values in the Constitution. Many people don't realize that this document is one that was created for the primary purpose of protecting the people from an infringing government. We need to wake up and elect a respectable person who stands for what is right by interpreting the Constitution strictly, thus preserving our inalienable rights.
Ron Paul 2012
I think people are way too hyper and sensitive about their civil rights. I know this is only a drug case, but on a grander scale, people are more worried about getting groped by a TSA agent or the inconvenience of removing their shoes at the airport than they are about homeland security. It's a slippery slope. I'm aware that a few government officials do abuse their power, but I trust the vast majority to use their judgement. Frankly, it shocks and disgusts me that the Supreme Court has the time to sort through such minor cases. OF COURSE you can't expect privacy on public streets. If police had to wait for a warrant for every little thing nothing would ever get done.
The groups that claim today's GPS technology is radically different from the beepers of yesteryear are obviously tech-phobes. Just because today's technology is more efficient does not mean it's an instrument of Big Brother. It's as if they think people have gained the right to privacy in their cars just because we now have better machines to track them. I think they should be able to track people with these GPS machines if they want because it is essentially the same as tailing them but it takes less man power. This means that the police departments with have to shell out less money for hours worked, giving them money to allocate to other areas.
I don't believe that the Supreme court should have overturned the Jones case. A warrant should have been issued but the fact that this technology lead to a deserving guilty sentencing should reinforce the need for a warrant; the crime remains the same.
GPS technology is becoming an effective tool for law enforcement but like stun guns and gun in general , they should not be overused. Ergo the need for a warrant. Besides, a GPS may be in use for a couple of weeks before the police force member gets enough information to track the subject or book them on a crime. A few hours in court to get a warrant doesn't seem like more that the usual business for a cop.The warrant would be serving its purpose in cases like the Jones case, the protection of citizens from systems that can become corrupt, even if they were created with good intentions and even if the individual under surveillance is indeed guilty.
I don't believe that the Supreme court should have overturned the Jones case. A warrant should have been issued but the fact that this technology lead to a deserving guilty sentencing should reinforce the need for a warrant; the crime remains the same.
GPS technology is becoming an effective tool for law enforcement but like stun guns and gun in general , they should not be overused. Ergo the need for a warrant. Besides, a GPS may be in use for a couple of weeks before the police force member gets enough information to track the subject or book them on a crime. A few hours in court to get a warrant doesn't seem like more that the usual business for a cop.The warrant would be serving its purpose in cases like the Jones case, the protection of citizens from systems that can become corrupt, even if they were created with good intentions and even if the individual under surveillance is indeed guilty.
Although the police are trying to use technological advances to solve cases and arrest criminals, I don't think installing a GPS device into their vehicles is a good idea. First of all, it is unconstitutional because it goes against the 4th Amendment in the Bill of Rights by "searching" and "seizing" a US citizen's property without a warrant. Second, it might not work because if the criminal suspects are guilty or are trying to hide something from the police, then they can use another vehicle or find another way to get to their destination without the police finding out. Finally, people do expect some privacy on public roads because their destination could be a secret and wouldn't anyone, maybe even the police if their activity is illegal, following them and getting them caught.
It is useful to be able to track criminal’s whereabouts through the use of a GPS device. These devices enable law enforcement to track criminals that put us all in danger and, since they are traveling on public roads, there is no invasion of privacy. As long as his house or personal belongings were not gone through than there is no need for a search warrant. Tracking criminals through GPS devices will help police find people that are otherwise a threat to public safety.
I dont think its right that the goverment is just able to do whatever they want like placing a GPS on car. If you want to find something out do it the right way spy on him or something. How lazy do you have to be to put a GPS and just sit there and watch the movements on a screen and see where there going.
If the police can do a stake out without a warrent than why shouldn't they be able to use a GPS system to track them without a warrent. It is the same principle of following the persons moves except electronically. It does seem much more invasive but at the same time it is also much more convenient for authorities to use. Also, many times getting a search warrent can take more time than authorities have to track someone, and the required evidence to get one may not be accessible. If getting a warrent would not get in the way of solving crimes effeiciently than there would be no problem in requiring them for the GPS tracking. However, there is a reason why warrents are required and it is to prevent authorities from taking advantage of people and invading their rights. This if because there have always been situations in the past where such incidents occured causing for such stipulations and regulations to be enforced.
Personally I don't think that the police need a warrant to use a GPS in an investigation. The use of a GPS would make investigations much cheaper and a lot quicker. But, I think that they should have a limit to how long they use it for. Yes, it makes people have a shortage in privacy but it would help police catch criminals a lot quicker. But overall I say they don't need it because in order to get a warrant it takes time and work and by that time evidence could be gone.
GPS tracking on vehicles is too much in my opinion. I know this is a rapid growing technological era but the government cant keep getting more and more into citizen's business. There needs to be a distinct level of privacy which that clearly invades. I feel like that is a big part of our freedom as American citizens. First they use GPS on our cars, then eventually they start putting chips in babies heads. I know it seems very unlikely now and we look as that as a joke but i guarantee that they used to talk about tracking vehicles as a joke too...
No, I don't believe that the police's use of GPS tracking of suspects requires a judge's approval depending on the stage in the investigation and the period of time the surveillance occurs. People cannot expect privacy on any public road because it is PUBLIC and anyone has an equal right to that road. Police patrol parks don't they? Those are public too and you can get arrested there for selling drugs just like you would if you were selling drugs out of your house. However, I do see the issue of having the police tracking suspects at their own discretion because what would prevent them from tagging anyone's car? But if someone is a legitimate suspect and the police have a legitimate cause, such as having previously arresting that suspect, I don't really have a problem with the police tagging their car.
I don't think a GPS tracker violates privacy any more than a wire would. A wire, however, monitors a private phone call. The GPS tracker monitors movement on a public road, which theoretically could be monitored by officers. A GPS saves valuable human assets for more pertinent tasks. That being said, I think a Judge's approval should be required to monitor movements. Monitoring citizen's movements without due process is a stepping stone to some terrible police state.
I honestly don't think that this is a bad idea. Even the statistics that we used in class for the debate said that a criminal who has been released from jail will most likely be put back in jail within three years. (Maybe not exactly that but I don't have my notebook in front of me.) With the GPS tracking police officers will be able to see if a previous criminal is up to something fishy or around an area that has a whole lot of criminal activity. This will save a whole lot of time and possibly keep a lot of people from getting hurt. If these people wanted to keep their privacy they shouldn't have gotten themselves into jail and involved with stupid stuff. I think they brought it on themselves and that this should be some of their punishment and if they show signs of improvement them maybe they can talk about getting the GPS taken off or monitored less often.
The Supreme Court should not require that the police get a judge's approval before tracking criminal susppects with GPS devices. GPS technology is just like the beeper that police once employed in surveillance. The Justice Department is right when they said " GPS devices are especially useful in early stages of an investigation", because getting a warrant may take different amounts of time.
I believe that the government should only put a GPS to track people in cars only if you get red flagged. To put GPS in every car is unconstitutional. People have the right of privacy on the road.
The way I see it, if the police have a solid reason to put a GPS tracking device on a suspect's vehicle, there shoudln't be any need for them to have a warrant. If the devices are proven to be helpful in these situations, then why not use them?
I think having the gps technology for tracking certain things is a good idea, but I also think people who do nothing wrong should have some kind of privacy while driving or where their driving on the road. Using the gps technology will definately benefit to finding the criminals who are selling drugs and doing other illegal things they shouldn't be doing and is much stronger to use the gps technology than the beeper technology. There are so many people getting away with it now a days.
Post a Comment