44.493
Issues in Criminal Justice Technology & Security
Case study: GPS (continued)
"In light of the decisions
in McIver and Jackson, it would be reasonable to apply to the
use of GPS devices the same federal law rules that govern the
use of bird dogs. But consideration should include the U.S. Supreme
Court's 2001 decision in Kyllo v. United States, because it addresses
the use of new and advancing technologies by police.
In Kyllo law enforcement agents
used a thermal imaging device to monitor the heat signature of
a house where they suspected marijuana was being grown. The Court
ruled that use of the device without a warrant was unreasonable:
'When the government uses a device that is not in general public
use to explore details of the home that would previously have
been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance
is a search and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.'
One could argue that installing and monitoring a GPS tracking
device necessitates a court order, because the device 'is not
in general public use.' But because the use of a GPS tracking
device in a public area does not intrude upon homeplace privacy,
and because it only does better what a traditional bird dog already
did, it is likely that the Supreme Court will apply Knotts and
Karo. In that event, it would not require a court order for the
installation and monitoring of a GPS tracking device as long
as the vehicle is and remains in a public area.
source: --"GPS
Tracking Devices and the Constitution"
- Has widespread availability
of GPS changed equation, so that GPS surveillance will become
common?
Case of Robert Moran, Troy, N.Y., attorney who is suspected as
associate of the Hell's Angels, was indicted on conspiracy and
drug trafficking charges: police attached GPS device to his car,
tracked him driving to various Hell's Angels hangouts. His attorney
"demanded the data be tossed out, because police did not
get a judge's permission to electronically eyeball his client's
movements. 'That could be construed as a violation of the Fourth
Amendment... That's the one that forbids police from illegally
searching people or their property.' US District Judge David
Hurd didn't see it that way. 'Moran had no expectation of privacy
in the whereabouts of his vehicle on a public roadway,' Hurd
wrote in his ruling. 'Thus there was no search or seizure and
no Fourth Amendment implications in the use of the GPS device.'
"On the surface, Hurd's ruling makes perfect sense. But
think it through and it ought to give you the creeps. Police
obviously have the right to follow suspicious characters through
public places. If they had to get court orders first, the hoodlums
would own the streets. Hurd figured that in this case, the police
were simply using a digital technology to do the same thing police
had always done..... But, if GPS surveillance doesn't require
a visit to a judge, can the government digitally track a citizen's
location whenever it chooses? Assistant US Attorney David Grable,
prosecutor in the Moran case, thinks so: 'I think the government
would take the position that since it's not a search, you don't
need any justification to use any one of these devices.' He admitted
the concept is troubling. 'I get nervous about some of these
big brotherish implications,' Grable said. But he believes cops
won't generally abuse this power, because they haven't the time
or the inclination to track people at random."
However, with e911 and GPS devices such as OnStar being built
into cars, that won't be a problem for police."Hurd's ruling,
and the Supreme Court decision on which it's based, are rooted
in the limitations of the physical world. In an age when cops
could only tail you on foot or by car, there was no need to set
legal limits on the practice. The department's budget and an
officer's sore bunions did the trick. 'Manpower is limited. It
forces you to make decisions,' said Lauren Weinstein, moderator
of the Privacy Forum, an Internet site. 'But GPS is cheap.' So
cheap that the temptation to engage in casual surveillance may
become irresistible. In a world gone digital, where cops can
follow you anywhere by pushing a few buttons, it's time to think
differently. Just as there are sensible laws governing the use
of wiretaps, there should be statutes requiring some kind of
judicial review before the police can track a citizen's travels."
(my emphasis)
"GPS Spying may prove irresistible
to police"
1 | 2 | 3 | 4
| 5