Jacob Sullum | May 11, 2009
Last week a Wisconsin appeals court ruled that police do not need a warrant to track someone's movements by secretly attaching a GPS device to his car. The District 4 Court of Appeals reasoned that attaching the device is neither a "search" nor a "seizure," and the information gleaned from it also could be obtained through perfectly lawful observation of the car's movements, without intruding into any private areas. But the court added that it was "more than a little troubled" by that conclusion and urged Wisconsin legislators to restrict the use of GPS technology by police.
I too am troubled by this result, especially since attaching a tracking device to someone else's car without his permission is a violation of his property rights. At the same time, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to all forms of surveillance or all invasions of privacy. It's pretty clear that surveillance cameras are constitutional, for example, as long as they are located in and trained on public spaces. The best approach in this case might be a statute that makes GPS bugging a criminal offense without a warrant.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
"the information gleaned from it also could be obtained through
perfectly lawful observation of the car's movements, without
intruding into any private areas."
This seems specious- when they attach a GPS to a car, they are
using perfectly lawful observation without intruding into private
areas. They are intruding into the person's private property (his
car)- in some circumstances, it may require the policy to actually
enter on the person's land or garage. By the court's reasoning, it
is ok to bug a cell phone without a warrant because people commonly
use cell phones in public places where the conversation can be
overheard.
The best approach in this case might be a statute that makes
GPS bugging a criminal offense without a warrant.
You are only compounding the problem.
I prefer a statute that makes GPS without a warrant bugging a
criminal offense. :)
I too am more than a little troubled by this result, especially since attaching a tracking device to someone else's car without his permission is a violation of his property rights.
Just do what I do: stick it on a bus going into San Quentin...
If this is not intrusive can I start donating locking gas caps to the cops as a surprise?
I work in an industry that uses GPS tracking of vehicles. I don't know what technology the police was using, but our GPS antennas don't work with any metal between the device and the sky. As a result, we place the antenna on the front window or outside, on the top of the vehicle. The police would have to do something similar: place the device somewhere on the upper surface of the car, not under the car or inside. The car owner should thus be able to spot the device relatively easily and dispose of it.
I have mixed feelings about this ruling.
Technically, I don't see the constitutional issue with this.
Using a GPS doesn't seem that much different than following
someone. But if police decide to use this on a large scale it
becomes more troubling. When staking someone out and following them
around, you are limited by finite resources. You only have so many
bodies and you only want to follow around people who really deserve
it (like violent criminals you think are going to strike soon) --
but using GPS tracking could easily allow the police to track just
about anyone on a large scale for even the most mundane of
things.
It doesn't seem that far fetched to think that GPS tracking could
become very commonly used against any and all people suspected of
anything
This has been established 4th amendment precedent for decades, at least in regards to hidden "beepers" that let police track a car or truck by radio wave triangulation. The controlling issue is not whether or not the tracking device lets police track an individual's movement through the public (where are otherwise knowingly exposing themselves to view), but whether the device would allow tracking even within a private area. So, for example, a tracking device that could show what room an individual was in inside a house would be a search requiring a warrant.
it is ok to bug a cell phone without a warrant because people
commonly use cell phones in public places where the conversation
can be overheard
YES!!!
Perhaps the new Obama Health Company will mandate GPS/audio
tracking in all dental work.
This, "cries out for a new paradigm-an entirely different way of
delivering dental services to those who need them most."
if I am allowed to put a gps unit on a police car, then I would be okay with this. something tells me cops would be uncomfortable if organized crime could track their wherabouts.
Why not require GPS transmitters as part of the "privilege" of being allowed to drive a car? I suppose we could ignore the 5th Amendment implications of that, too.
Jozef, I understand what you're saying, and it's been my
experience that GPS signals are so weak, that antennae usually have
to be exposed to the sky... directly. But somehow people seem to be
making "trackers" for various covert purposes that claim no antenna
mounting necessary:
http://www.consumertracking.com/deals/product/gps-tracking-system-t-trac-car-gps-tracker-device-system-fleet-unit-B001GWYBJM
something tells me cops would be uncomfortable if organized
crime could track their wherabouts.
Organized crime ALREADY knows their wherabouts. What the hell do
you think time honored traditions of graft and corruption are
for?
Paul,
From your link: The T-Trac XS is completely self contained and
uses 4 standard "AA" batteries (NOT INCLUDED)
We need a federal program to forse these cheap companies to include
batteries.
Why not require GPS transmitters as part of the "privilege"
of being allowed to drive a car? I suppose we could ignore the 5th
Amendment implications of that, too.
But of course! How else do you expect them to be able to tax us for
our carbon footprints?
"It doesn't seem that far fetched to think that GPS tracking
could become very commonly used against any and all people
suspected of anything."
What about when big brother uses GPS to track us for road use / tax
purposes? I have heard this being mentioned to replace / augment
the state and federal fuel taxes. I would imagine that the GPS
technology to measure miles driven could be easily jimmied by
police for all sorts of THX-1138 style eves-dropping.
/In that movie the characters were punished for drug abuse when
they flushed their daily pills down the toilet. Change I can
believe in.
So are we taking crazy pills, or is everyone else? It's gotta be one of the two.
I think they may have already continued this idea to the next
logical step.
I woke up on front lawn this morning wearing a radio collar like a
bear.
Xeones: "Yo, fuck the District 4 Court of Appeals."
This ruling sprang from empathy, the kind Obama wants his Supreme
Court nominee to show.
The court empathized with the police, poor things. They have SO
much trouble keeping track of motorists.
Tracking collars wired with explosives would make America safer. Besides being able to track and stop any of us committing crimes, the government could also use the exploding collars to deal with the WoT or the WoD. For instance, if hijackers were to attempt another 9/11, law enforcement could simply explode the collars of a few citizens sitting near the hijackers and save the day!
You only have so many bodies and you only want to follow
around people who really deserve it (like violent criminals you
think are going to strike soon) -- but using GPS tracking could
easily allow the police to track just about anyone on a large scale
for even the most mundane of things.
But aren't we all in favor of making government more efficient?
Won't this allow the police to cut their budgets?
Pro Libertate,
Tracking collars wired with explosives would make America safer.
Besides being able to track and stop any of us committing crimes,
the government could also use the exploding collars to deal with
the WoT or the WoD. For instance, if hijackers were to attempt
another 9/11, law enforcement could simply explode the collars of a
few citizens sitting near the hijackers and save the day!
Don't know if Richard Dawson will get a new game show with the
Obama administration, but next month the new digital TV will be
ready for Running Man style news.
Anyone know if this made it to an episode of COPS?
http://judicial-inc.biz/7_11_pizza_bomb_bank_robbery.htm
Janet Reno,
Certainly, The Running Man was the leader in exploding
collar promotion.
So if I find it on my car is it now mine to do with as I
please?
Or will I be billed by the police if it goes missing?
So it's fine for me to put a GPS tracker on a public sponsered vechicle such as a police car?
Thanks Shannon Love I instantly thought something similar. My thought involved feeling a slight pinch on my buttcheek while walking down a public street. Hmm, is that little lump swelling from a bee sting or a subcutaneous gps tacking device shot into my ass by the man. I think I have to go put on my tinfoil hat.
Every government official in that article should assume their car is currently being monitored with a GPS device. I'm sure there are more than a few aspiring hackers in Wisconsin keeping tabs on where those fools go (better tell your wife about that mistress).
I was thinking the same thing about this as JB, but more
specifically about the District 4 Court of Appeals. Take a look at
Judge Paul Lundsten:
http://www.wicourts.gov/about/judges/appeals/lundsten.htm . That
guys face screams nambla.
A GPS on his PT Cruiser would undoubtedly catch him buggering teen
boys at the closest interstate rest stop.
I think the state court's reasoning in this case is in line with how the U.S. Supreme Court interprets and applies the 4th Amendment. The problem with the approach is that the Court often focuses on the nature of the information obtained, not how the police obtained the information. To reinvigorate the 4th courts need to look at both. Under the common law at the time of the founding, this would have undoubtedly lead to trespass charges against the police. http://rhettlemmel.com
Not the first time:
http://www.kipesquire.net/2007/12/court-finds-unlimited-police-power-to-plant-gps-on-vehicles/
I can't help but empathize with the court hear. 'According to
the law, this isn't really illegal, but we think it should be,
because it represents a gap in tech between when the law was
written and today'.
That's certainly better than making up ways to apply the old laws
to new situations.
Almost feels like we need some Constitutional Ammendments to
clarify where new technology falls.
New York's highest court just ruled exactly opposite.
Law professor Ann Althouse had a nice little post on it:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/05/are-police-free-to-attach-gps-device-to_12.html
Sometimes it's necessary to have GPS tracking on your car. I bought one from brickhousesecurity.com to track my husband and I think it's made our marriage even stronger because now there is no suspicion.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245