by Megan Grimes
The 4th amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This text explains briefly about the necessary probable cause to obtain a warrant to validate the search. The Supreme Court has since debated on specific issues that may arise and ruled accordingly. The rulings are then used to debate future issues that may seem grey. In this case, a GPS tracking device was placed on a car in order to obtain information leading to a conviction.
A GPS tracking device can be used to monitor a person’s movements 24 hours a day, for extended periods of time. This information can be useful for convictions. The question is does this violate someone’s constitutional rights? The Supreme Court released their ruling yesterday to answer this question. Upon a unanimous decision, the court ruled that placing a GPS tracking device onto a car requires a warrant. Although all votes were unanimous, they were split upon their reasoning behind the choice.
This new ruling has reversed the cocaine-trafficking conviction of a nightclub owner in Washington, DC. Police attached a GPS tracking device to the car of Antoine Jones, back in 2005, while it was parked in a public parking lot. On the conspiracy to distribute cocaine, documentation of the traveling was used against him to win the conviction.
Justice Antonin Scalia stated that this is a physical intrusion by the government “for the purpose of obtaining information constitutes a search” explains his opinion on the ruling. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor also agree with this view of the ruling. On the other hand, the four other Justices, believe that the expectation of privacy was violated by the placing of a GPS tracking device. In each opinion, the outcome is the same, but the reasoning behind their choices are different.
This will change the use of GPS tracking devices for future cases. In order for the police to attach a GPS tracking device, they will be required to obtain a warrant. This will require probable cause, which is a reasonable belief by a third party person that a crime could be committed. A warrant is obtained by providing probable cause to a judge and getting them to sign off on the search you want to perform.
A search is a very grey area to discuss. There are two important factors pertaining to a search. First is an expectation of privacy. Do you expect privacy in your own vehicle? Of course you do. The second is that society is willing to protect that privacy. Do you expect privacy on public transportation? Well if society isn’t willing to protect that privacy then you don’t have a search. For example, if you are in your own vehicle you expect privacy and society is willing to protect that privacy, therefore a warrant is required to search your vehicle. However, if you are a passenger in someone else’s car, you might expect privacy but society isn’t willing to protect that privacy. Therefore, it is not considered a search and no warrant is required. This leads back to the discussion of the two viewpoints on the GPS decision. All nine justices agree that the placing of a tracking device is considered a search and will require a warrant. The only difference is the basis of the choice. Five justices agree that it’s an intrusion by the government to obtain such information, and is considered a search for that purpose. However, the other four justices agree that it’s actually a violation of your expectation to privacy by placing the tracking device and is also then considered a search.
Either way, a search warrant will now be required place a tracking device onto a vehicle. Once more instances of GPS tracking rise to the Supreme Court, exceptions will arise just as with other vehicle searches. But for now, the current ruling will stand.
Tags: Law
