GPS devices and the 4th Amendment

[TMF]

All nine justices agreed that Law Enforcement must obtain a warrant before placing GPS tracking devices on vehicles citing the 4th Amendment.

These devices were installed on the exterior of vehicles without the need to illegally enter the suspects' vehicles, and therefore many LE agencies felt this wasn't a violation. So, what are your thoughts... did Scalia and the ACLU get this right?

Nashville, other police must get warrant to use GPS on suspects | The Tennessean | tennessean.com (sorry, this is a link to the story on the Tennessean... don't hate, participate.)

[Guest bkelm18]

I was actually quite surprised it was a unanimous ruling. I agree with it. Just like wire tapping. You need a warrant to do so, even though the phone lines aren't yours, there's still some expectation of privacy, just like your car.

[leroy]

I think the GPSs ruling is interesting too. I believe the justices hit a home run with this one. We do not live in a police state (....yet, anyway...) where peoples commings and goings should be monitored by the gubment without due cause. Looks like the Fourth Amendment has been given a little bit more life.

leroy

[daddyo]

I think they got it right.

Just another example of law enforcement pushing the envelope without bothering to consider the constitutionality of their actions.

[Jonnin]

I wonder what the implications of this are for like car rental companies that spy on the users with gps, some even report excessive speeds (supposedly, could just be urban legends).

[mav]

Yep, they got it right.

[Guest bkelm18]

I wonder what the implications of this are for like car rental companies that spy on the users with gps, some even report excessive speeds (supposedly, could just be urban legends).

I suppose if this were true a simple clause in the rental agreement admitting that they have GPS devices would take care of that.

[Pain103]

It wouldn't have any bearing on car rental companies that install gps on their cars. They aren't held by the 4th Amendment they aren't a government agency. It's been a normal practice to have a warrant for tracking devices but they let their warrant expire and then installed the device outside the area the warrant allowed. They asked for their cases to get the boot. I am glad it does require a warrant at the very least.

[wewoapsiak]

If I remember correctly, when I saw this on another website it said they couldn't do it long-term without a warrant, but didn't define long-term. Seems like a loophole to me, but then again if they want to track me going to Wally World and school they can go ahead.

Sent from my Jitterbug.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Good decision. Am surprised the supremes did the right thing. Unanimous no less! Wow!

Heard somewhere that some car dealers who sell to unusually un-creditworthy customers also install GPS until the car is paid off. The guy told me those GPS devices have the ability to remotely kill the ignition if the customer falls behind on payments. Dunno if that it is true.

Am thinking that car dealer situation is no constitutional problem as long as the customer knows about it. Better to have the GPS than not be able to buy a car I suppose.

GMC OnStar might be a good thing in some ways, but am pretty sure I'd never buy a GM car if it was equipped with OnStar.

GM's OnStar now spying on your car for profit even after you unsubscribe? [uPDATE]

[LagerHead]

The government does not have a right to know what you are doing any time they please. This is the correct decision. The fact that it had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to validate that is a sad commentary on the way our government thinks.

[TMF]

Just to be clear, the ACLU was on the right side of this one. They've been all over this for a while now... just something to think about.

[MikePapa1]

I found this decision interesting. I do agree with it, but the reasoning is, well, different. Putting a GPS on a suspect's vehicle requires a warrant but simnply following him does not. This is simply an easy way for police to follow a suspect. Compare that to the ruling that police don't need a warrant to search your cell phone. The reasoning there was that there's no expectation of privacy in a cell phone. Frankly, I see that as ridiculous. These types of inconsistency in the application of Constitutional rights continues to puzzle me and make me wonder if the USSChas any consistent legal philosophy by which to judge these issues.

[E4 No More]

I think they got it right. I'm also surprised that it was unanimous.

[thundersnow]

Even though they all voted the same way, their opinions were all published with different reasoning as to the interpretation on the fourth amendment. Most were of the opinion that there should be " a reasonable expectation of privacy." One opinion was trying to make the " trespassing on my property " reasoning fit the mold. Seems a little off, but the end result is good for civil liberties...

[china coaster]

Hell Yes!

[quietguy]

They got this one right. I am all for law enforcement having access to the technology they need, but the application should require a warrant.

They aren't held by the 4th Amendment they aren't a government agency

That isn't necessarily true, if I understand the law. If you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, then it can be extended outside of government entities.

Edited January 25, 2012 by quietguy

[mikegideon]

All nine justices agreed that Law Enforcement must obtain a warrant before placing GPS tracking devices on vehicles citing the 4th Amendment.

These devices were installed on the exterior of vehicles without the need to illegally enter the suspects' vehicles, and therefore many LE agencies felt this wasn't a violation. So, what are your thoughts... did Scalia and the ACLU get this right?

Nashville, other police must get warrant to use GPS on suspects | The Tennessean | tennessean.com (sorry, this is a link to the story on the Tennessean... don't hate, participate.)

They can tap your phone without any entry too. Get a warrant. It ain't that hard with a little evidence.

[Chucktshoes]

They can tap your phone without any entry too. Get a warrant. It ain't that hard with a little evidence.

Evidence? You mean they're expected to have an actual demonstrable reason to snoop?