Justices to decide police use of GPS devices on suspects' cars - CNN.com:
Yesterday the US Supreme Court heard arguments on police use of GPS devices to track suspects' cars. The case is based on the unreasonable search and seizure clause in the constitution. Government agents attached a GPS tracker to a criminal's car without obtaining a warrant and arrested the man after tracking his movements charging drum trafficking. Lower courts have held that the tracking device was illegal. The government appealed the case to the Supreme Court.
This case is interesting on several grounds. It pits technology innovation against privacy rights, which incidentally are NOT guaranteed by the constitution unless one takes a rather broad view of the fourth amendment's search and seizure provisions.
Consider first should it be legal for police to follow a criminal suspect without obtaining a warrant? Certainly if there are exigent circumstances such as the person is seen fleeing a crime scene the answer would be yes. But what if a person is simply driving down the street and a police officer decides to follow to see if the driver violates a traffic law? Would that be entrapment? How would you feel if you were the driver? How about if the driver was a known criminal who had previous convictions and was suspected of dealing drugs as is the case here?
Consider as well traffic and surveillance cameras including both private and government deployed cameras. They are increasingly common and the courts have held evidence acquired from such cameras admissible. Such materials may be used without resort to a warrant. But if the government wants to setup a camera to monitor a specific place a warrant is required. Is attaching a GPS tracker to a car similar in that it involves specific real property?
A warrant is required for a telephone tap. But how about listening in on wireless phone calls? Such calls can be monitored by anyone with an appropriate receiver. Should privacy rights be dependent on the technology used to make a telephone call?
How far should privacy extend? When should a warrant be required?
In its arguments the government maintained that it has the right to attach a GPS to any vehicle without a warrant. Common Sense believes that in this case the government is entirely wrong. Surveillance that targets a specific person, place, property, etc. should always require a warrant under the fourth amendment. Absent such protection the government is free to adopt technical means to subvert the fourth amendment and the probable cause protections provided by warrants.
No comments:
Post a Comment