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.
I suspect that Scalia is concerned about the rights of citizens against illegal search and seizure, whereas Sotomayor is probably concerned about the rights of illegal immigrant drug dealers.
Never mind, the decision is correct. If the law wants to track drug dealers, they should get a warrant.
Thank God! I was really worried about this one. It could have been 5-4 against, and one or two of “our guys” could have gone against. This gives me some hope that sanity may be restored some day.
Me too. Especially in the unanimity of the court in protecting constitutional rights.
This is another personal blow to obama and I think we will see an ultimate smackdown in the obamacare case when his own justices vote aginst his so called landmark legislation.
This is the second unanimous vote in as many weeks. I’m blown away.
ping
Are you implying that http://neighbors.whitepages.com/ is run by government authorities?
Who is 'they'?
Things like "it's my car, it's my data".
The idea that they can have my driving info, or cell info and use it against me..well, it denys the right to take the fifth.
But the bottom line is usually MONEY...like insurance companies.
The difference between car and phone in this instance is the phone does not hold the gps coord unless there was an app placed on the phone. Good luck telling me i have to add a app to let the police keep up with me.
I have mixed feelings on this one since a warrant had previously been issued for an area and an amount of time.
I don’t think police should randomly be permitted to track people. At the same time, they must have had enough evidence to convince a judge to give them the initial warrant.
As near as I can tell, the judge erred on the side of geography and duration, and I find it odd that the druggie was comfortable after that time and in a different location.
Moreover, we are now 100% CERTAIN that the guy was traffiking drugs. There is no doubt. He is guilty as sin of the charge.
Therefore, the police were reasonable in their suspicions.
On the other hand, tracking the GPS in his cell phone is a different matter. He is broadcasting his location to the world and the world can track him
"...Sotomayor is probably concerned about the rights of illegal immigrant drug dealers."
I haven't read the opinion, but this apparently was one of her concerns:
(Not a criminal context obviously, but I thought her placing such concern over privacy matters with voluntary disclosures was interesting given the amount of private information that people will be compelled to share under Obamacare...)
Setting aside for a moment the things dishonest people can accomplish when they decide to lie under oath, the supreme court's decision in this case is very good news for the people of the United States and for the 4th Amendment. It certainly beats the alternative.
High speed internet service has been deemed a basic human right!
That being the case, it goes without saying that 'smart' utiltiy meters are unconstitutional...
; - )
true- 4th Amendment win!
luvs me some Scalia.
And hopefully too some Republicans as well. Like the ones who support keeping databases on law abiding persons purchases or the ones who want black boxes or {snitch boxes} installed in vehicles. Just because we possess the technology to do something does not mean government needs it as a tool to use on us without Constitutional limitations including probable cause and proper use of a warrant.
Outrageous or not, they're still allowed to express themselves, as long as they weren't using school equipment to do so, it's really no business of the school. If they were engaging in libel, that might be a different story, but that's not what they were accused of, was it?
wait till obamacare, that is where they ware waiting to rule.
Then there is now forcing religious institutions to do abortions, contraceptives etc
What a muddle this ruling seems to be - 4 weeks of 24x7 GPS tracking is not okay, but some lesser amount of GPS tracking might be okay? What huh?
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.