44.493
Issues in Criminal Justice Technology & Security
Case study: GPS (continued)
- Constitutional issues:
"two cases in the western United States have affirmed the
warrantless use of a GPS tracking device under federal constitutional
law based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent concerning bird dog
tracking"
- "United States v. Knotts
the Supreme Court considered in 1983 whether a court order is
necessary for the installation and monitoring of a bird dog tracking
device in a public location. In Knotts law enforcement agents
placed the tracking device inside a container of chloroform that
they tracked to a methamphetamine lab. The Court ruled that the
installation and monitoring of the device in a public place was
not a violation of the defendant's rights, because "nothing
in the Fourth Amendment prohibited the police from augmenting
the sensory faculties bestowed upon them at birth with such enhancement
as science and technology afforded them in this case." After
Knotts it was clear that law enforcement officers do not need
a court order to install or monitor that type of tracking device
on a suspect's vehicle as long as it is located in a public place.
But Knotts left open the question of whether the same investigators
could lawfully monitor the same device if the vehicle on which
it had been installed left the public roadway and entered into
private property. The Court addressed that question the following
year in United States v. Karo. In that case, Drug Enforcement
Administration agents obtained a court order for the installation
and monitoring of a bird dog tracking device in a 50-gallon drum
of ether that they tracked to a residence where they found a
cocaine lab. On appeal the defendant claimed that the initial
court order was invalid and that the evidence seized inside the
residence was the fruit of the illegal monitoring of the device.
The Supreme Court ruled that the government did not need a warrant
to install and monitor the device initially, but it did need
a warrant to continue to monitor the device after it entered
a private residence. The Court reasoned that the 'indiscriminate
monitoring of property that has been withdrawn from public view
would present far too serious a threat to privacy interests in
the home to escape entirely some sort of Fourth Amendment oversight.'
- United States v. McIver.
'Because McIver was suspected of cultivating marijuana plants,
law enforcement agents placed both a bird dog and a GPS tracking
device on his vehicle. After approximately three days, the GPS
system malfunctioned and the agents relied solely on the bird
dog to track the vehicle to a place where the agents found evidence
of marijuana cultivation. After
their convictions, the defendants appealed, claiming that the
warrantless installation and monitoring of the tracking devices
violated their constitutional rights. Relying on Karo, the court
dismissed their challenge, holding that the use of the tracking
devices on the vehicle was permissible because the officers did
not meaningfully interfere with possessory interests in the vehicle
or intrude upon a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Two state appeals courts in Washington have also addressed the
GPS tracking device issue. In State of Washington v. Jackson
law enforcement agents installed a GPS device on the vehicle
of a murder suspect. After his conviction, the defendant appealed,
claiming that the installation and monitoring of the device invaded
his right to privacy. In 2002 the appeals courts found that both
Knotts and Karo applied to the new GPS technology and that no
warrant was necessary because the use of the device 'did not
impermissibly intrude upon the private affairs' of the defendant.
In other words, police violated neither the state constitution
nor the U.S. Constitution when they used the device. In 2003
the Washington Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that,
due to the more restrictive nature of the state constitution,
police in that state must obtain a court order before using a
GPS tracking device."
1 | 2 | 3 | 4