Can Police Track Your Car Without a Warrant?

Next time you hear someone say they don't know what they'd do without their GPS, keep in mind: the police are getting pretty fond of it too.

In fact, law enforcement is relying on it more than ever to track and charge suspects, and at least two federal appeals courts in the country say they can do it -- without a warrant. But a third court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, recently ruled that the police cannot affix a satellite-based global positioning system (GPS) to a suspect's car without a warrant, follow his movements for a month, and then use the information to build a case against him. It would be akin to conducting a search without a warrant, said the court, and violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which protects citizens from illegal search and seizures.

As a result, the court reversed appellant Antoine Jones's drug conviction on Aug. 6, ruling that "it was obtained with evidence procured in violation of the Fourth Amendment." To read the court's full ruling, click here (pdf).

But the Obama Administration says it's going to fight the reversal, arguing in a Sept. 20 appeal that "the defendant's movements were exposed to public view" and that court precedent dictates that "what a person knowingly exposes to the public ... is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." In other words, Jones did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy driving around in his car. Read the appeal here (pdf).

Two other federal district courts -- the Ninth Circuit Court and the Fourth District Court -- both ruled this summer that the police have the right to put GPS devices on unwitting suspects' vehicles without warrant, sanctioning police in those western and mid-western states, respectively, to continue what amounts to spying on citizens without oversight (Change.org's Poverty in America blog covered the rulings' impact on low-income drivers). And it's happening all over the country -- last November police in Louisville, Kentucky, acknowledged the widespread use of GPS, particularly in its drug cases. According to a WHAS11 News investigation, about 30 percent of the time GPS was used, police there "did not get a judge to sign off on a warrant first."

All three of the cases brought to the federal appellate level involved drug trafficking and dealing. No doubt, GPS has become the latest tool in the government's War on Drugs and it's obvious why: police can obtain quick convictions by throwing what amounts to a dragnet over a suspected dealer/trafficker and his or her cohorts, following their every move 24/7 via satellite. Avoiding traditional court orders eliminates the need for "reasonable suspicion" and a lot of the usual, often tedious gumshoeing by detectives. (Read more after the jump.)

Legal observers are saying the U.S. Supreme Court will have to weigh in to clarify the constitutional repercussions and to make the law uniform. "The court has a blind spot particularly when it comes to keeping up with emerging technologies. Today we find ourselves in the midst of one of these blind spots," said University of Louisville criminal law professor Luke Milligan in an interview last year with WHAS11 News.

Since then, three circuit courts have ruled on the issue, perhaps gathering up the necessary steam for a Supreme Court review.

In the meantime, without restraint from the courts in the spirit of the Fourth Amendment, these sanctioned uses of GPS in the west and mid-west could lead to abuses not imagined by courts, far beyond the simple tracking of alleged drug dealers in an active investigation. Just think -- what can stop the authorities from using GPS to track parents involved in fractious child custody battles, or so-called dead-beat dads who fail to pay child support? If GPS can be used to spy on the dealers, why not track the movements of convicted drug users, in addition to court-ordered drug testing every month?  In fact, what would stop the government from suggesting it track parolees and even citizens on probation? Someday, armed with murky court precedent, state employers may even argue they can follow the movements of their workers traveling in their own cars, but on "company time."

GPS has made the opportunities for abuse endless. Citizens must consider that such technology, while making our lives ostensibly easier and perhaps even safer (as the use for tracking Alzheimer's patients seeks to demonstrate) could have deleterious effects on our constitutional rights and freedoms.

Photo Credit: OZinOH