In the GPS Case, Issues of Privacy and Technology. Supreme Court Decision in Warrantless GPS Tracking Case Offers Little Guidance in Consumer Privacy Context. Sometimes Fourth Amendment cases (which by definition arise in a governmental context) have implications for consumer privacy law since the "reasonable expectation of privacy" analysis can be employed in both areas.
Yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court 9-0 ruling in United States v. Jones that the warrantless attachment of a GPS device to a car for monitoring purposes violated the Fourth Amendment offers little guidance in the consumer privacy context as the majority of the Court did not rely on an "expectation of privacy" analysis.
The Court's main opinion, written by Justice Scalia, focused on narrow issue of whether there was a trespass when the GPS device was attached to the suspect's car. Concluding that a trespass occurred, the majority of the Court found that a warrant was required under the Fourth Amendment. Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court in which Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Kennedy, Thomas and Sotomayor joined. XPP-PDF Support Utility. 10-1259 United States v. Jones (01/23/2012) United States v. Jones is a Near-Optimal Result. This morning, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in United States v.
Jones, the GPS tracking case, deciding unanimously that the government violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights when it installed a wireless GPS tracking device on the undercarriage of his car and used it to monitor his movement’s around town for four weeks without a search warrant. Despite the unanimous result, the court was not unified in its reasoning. Five Justices signed the majority opinion, authored by Justice Scalia, finding that the Fourth Amendment “at bottom . . . assure[s] preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted” and thus analyzing the case under “common-law trespassory” principles. Justice Sotomayor, who signed the majority opinion, wrote a separate concurring opinion, but more on that in a second. 1. 2. 3.
Wow. 4. Supreme Court rules: Warrant needed for GPS tracking - Technology & science - Security. WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that police must get a search warrant before using GPS technology to track criminal suspects. The ruling represents a serious complication for law enforcement nationwide, which increasingly relies on high tech surveillance of suspects, including the use of various types of satellite technology. A GPS device installed by police on Washington nightclub owner Antoine Jones' Jeep helped them link him to a suburban house used to stash money and drugs. He was sentenced to life in prison before the appeals court overturned the conviction. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said that the government's installation of a GPS device, and its use to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a search, meaning that a warrant is required. "By attaching the device to the Jeep" that Jones was using, "officers encroached on a protected area," Scalia wrote.
All nine justices agreed that the GPS monitoring on the Jeep violated the U.S. Related: Police Use of GPS Is Ruled Unconstitutional. A set of overlapping opinions in the case collectively suggested that a majority of the justices are prepared to apply broad privacy principles to bring the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches into the digital age, when law enforcement officials can gather extensive information without ever entering an individual’s home or vehicle. Walter Dellinger, a lawyer for the defendant in the case and a former acting United States solicitor general, said the decision was “a signal event in Fourth Amendment history.”
“Law enforcement is now on notice,” Mr. Dellinger said, “that almost any use of GPS electronic surveillance of a citizen’s movement will be legally questionable unless a warrant is obtained in advance.” An overlapping array of justices were divided on the rationale for the decision, with the majority saying the problem was the placement of the device on private property. The Supreme Court affirmed that decision, but on a different ground.