Posted on 01/23/2012 9:47:35 AM PST by Recovering_Democrat
In a case that stemmed from an investigation by D.C. police and the FBI of a local drug dealer, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that police across the country need a warrant if they want to track suspects using GPS monitors.
In the ruling, which was written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court found that even though the case involved a GPS unit that was attached to a car that was out in the open, it still constituted a "search" under the language of the Fourth Amendment:
It is important to be clear about what occurred in this case: The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted. The case grew out of a 2005-2005 investigation into Antoine Jones, a D.C. club owner who was suspected of drug trafficking. As part of the investigation, police were given the green light to place a GPS tracker on Jones' car within 10 days and inside city limits. The GPS tracker was placed outside of the city and the time-limit allowed by the warrant, but Jones was still arrested after he led police to a Maryland stash house in which they found cocaine, crack and $850,000 in cash. Jones was later convicted for conspiracy to distribute illegal drugs.
Jones appealed the conviction, saying that the use of GPS on his car violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. On August 6, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with him, overturning his conviction. Beyond the issue of the GPS being placed on Jones' car outside of the scope of the warrant, the court found that "prolonged GPS monitoring reveals an intimate picture of the subject's life that he expects no one to have --short perhaps of his spouse."
In today's decision, the Supreme Court sustained the lower court's opinion.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: "The Government usurped Jones’ property for the purpose of conducting surveillance on him, thereby invading privacy interests long afforded, and undoubtedly entitled to, Fourth Amendment protection."
In his own concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito said that while short-term searches may be permissible, the extent of the GPS monitoring Jones was subjected to made it qualify as a search:
[T]he use of longer term GPS monitoring in investigations of most offenses impinges on expectations of privacy. For such offenses, society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period. In this case, for four weeks, law enforcement agents tracked every movement that respondent made in the vehicle he was driving. We need not identify with precision the point at which the tracking of this vehicle became a search, for the line was surely crossed before the 4-week mark. It goes without saying that this case would never have come to be had the GPS tracker been placed on Jones' car a day earlier and within city limits.
This and the backup on SOPA is VERY IMPORTANT and is showing that in the internet/computer age, you have to be doubly vigilant to protect freedom.
I’m actually surprised by the ruling, as the government has been only too happy to trample on our 4th amendment rights in the name of the so called “war on drugs”.
I don't think you can read that into this case. One would expect these Justices to take a very broad view of 4th amendment protections. Criminal law is the one place liberal justices are hostile to big, activist government. But don't get me wrong, I don't this this was that broad a reading of the 4th amendment and was pretty much an easy slam dunk decision on the result. Scalia has always been pretty good on the 4th amendment and it doesn't surprise me at all sided with the liberals on the Court here.
Great news.
They also stood up for a church school to fire someone that wasn’t acting according to their beliefs.
Recently, I have been very surprised with this court.
“I would like to see this extended to include the GPS data coming from my cell phone. Monitoring the GPS coordinates coming from my cell phone is no different than conducting a wire tap. Use of that data in a legal context should require an explicit warrant before the data is admissible as evidence in a legal proceeding. “
And let’s not forget FasTRAK/FastPass toll transponders. Here in Northern California CalTrans was forced to provide bags for your transponder that prevents it’s being tracked. It’s a pain in the ass to have to take it out to use it, but at least you have the satisfaction of knowing that they don’t know your every movement. Then, there are all the “smart utility meters,” another violation of your right of privacy.
It thought that a court order was necessary for law enforcement to obtain cell phone tracking data for evidence. I think that a warrant is required if law enforcement wants to get real time access to cell phone tracking data.
Last week they refused to hear a couple of cases against public school students who wrote objectionable comments about their principals on a website. The lower courts upheld the students’ rights and the Supreme Court refused to hear the cases, but my newspaper said the Court issued a statement warning the states not to interfere with students’ First Amendment rights.
I was amazed because the students’ actions were pretty outrageous.
they can probably circumvent that by not admitting they found someone that way. if it’s not admitted in evidence, just claim they used a person to track them down via good old shoeleather ,surveillance and paid informants.
who would be the wiser?
they can probably circumvent that by not admitting they found someone that way. if it’s not admitted in evidence, just claim they used a person to track them down via good old shoeleather ,surveillance and paid informants.
who would be the wiser?
Liberty ping.
uh..and what about the GPS I carry on my cell phone?
Can they track me on THAT without a warrent?
Again, in that situation the plaintiff had Pastoral duties and was for all intents and purposes an associate pastor. Thus, making the decision that the employer was protected by the first amendment wasn't a real tough call. That's why it was a 9-0 decision. Wait and see where they line up on the first 5-4 or 6-3 decision and then you can draw your conclusions.
Also, since it is an election year I wouldn’t put it past those two Justices to cover Obama’s back by toning down their jurisprudence. They don’t wan’t Obama’s opponant to be able to point to any radical opinions of theirs as Exhibit A as to why it’s dangerous to re-elect Obama and give him the chance to appoint more radicals. Don’t worry, I have no doubt that Kagan at least will prove to be every bit as extreme as our greatest fears.
Why the concern for the privacy of local drug dealers when the privacy of law abiding citizens is daily violated?
http://neighbors.whitepages.com/
What else do they know about us?
Nothing new here, he is part of the (holders people) protected class.
BS. It is not an invasion is you consent to it.
A private contract for a specific pricing schedule for cheap electric service is NOT the same as the police collecting evidence on you for a criminal case.
If you are a free man, you can disconnect your electric service, get gas appliances and heat and run your lights off of solar/batts.
But 21st century Americans are such coddled candy asses that they think all their luxuries (which didn't even exist for the founders) should be given to them for free.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.