When a GPS Means Justice

I wrote last week about the dangers of enabling law enforcement officers to follow suspects using Global Positioning System devices without a warrant. But GPS systems have prevented wrongful convictions in a handful of cases - where monitoring devices worn by suspects confirm their alibi and prove that they couldn't have committed a new crime. And these cases are further anecdotal evidence of the frequency with which innocent people are charged with crimes they didn't commit. A few are lucky enough to have GPS proof of innocence, but not everyone has this advantage (and as in the case of Juan Rivera below, sometimes it's not enough).

Last week, robbery charges were dropped against 19-year-old Andrew Lorenzana in Ohio after a GPS monitoring device (worn while out on bond for other charges) proved that he wasn't at the scene of the crime. The victim of the robbery had identified him.

Lorenzana's attorney, Anthony Rich, said the device is tamper proof, so it could not have been removed. That would have sent out an alert. The incident should serve as a cautionary tale, he said, against reliance on eyewitness identification.

"I think this just proves eyewitness identification isn't as great as people think it is," he said. "She told police Lorenzana did it three times, and she was absolutely wrong."

Sometimes, however, even hard evidence from a state-controlled GPS device isn't enough to convince prosecutors - and juries - of a defendant's innocence.

Juan Rivera was convicted of murder earlier this month in Chicago, despite GPS evidence from an electronic monitoring bracelet that he never left his home that night. Prosecutors argued that the GPS malfunctioned and Rivera committed the crime. Rivera says he's innocent and the GPS - combined with DNA and other evidence - prove it.

"You've got an innocent man in prison. All the evidence shows he was home. He didn't do this crime," said Rivera's brother Miguel Diaz.