Law-enforcement technologyCourt: a warrant is required for GPS tracking of suspects’ vehicles
A federal appeals court in Philadelphia has ruled that law enforcement officials must obtain a warrant before attaching a GPS device to a suspect’s car.The appeals judges said that “A GPS search extends the police intrusion well past the time it would normally take officers to enter a target vehicle and locate, extract, or examine the then-existing evidence.” They also pointedly noted that “Generally speaking, a warrant-less search is not rendered reasonable merely because probable cause existed that would have justified the issuance of a warrant.”
A federal appeals court in Philadelphia has ruled that law enforcement officials must obtain a warrant before attaching a GPS device to a suspect’s car. The ruling marks the end of a case involving alleged pharmacy burglaries in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.
red Orbit reports that authorities attached a magnetic tracking device to the car of three brothers who were suspected to have broken into several pharmacies. Using evidence from the tracking device, the vehicle was tracked to a recently burglarized RiteAid. Police stopped and searched the vehicle shortly after the burglary and found items stolen from the RiteAid.
In the case of U.S. v. Katzin, the brothers argued that the evidence obtained as a result of the GPS device should be inadmissible since the police did not obtain a warrant to track the vehicle.
The District Court ruled in favor of the brothers, and when the government appealed the case to the Court of Appeals for the Third District, a three-judge panel upheld the lower court’s ruling and found the police officers’ use of GPS tracking to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The Washington Posted noted that this was the first time an appeals court agreed with an earlier ruling which said that attaching a GPS device to a car constitutes a “search” and therefore requires a warrant.
“Today’s decision is a victory for all Americans because it ensures that the police cannot use powerful tracking technology without court supervision and a good reason to believe it will turn up evidence of wrongdoing,” said Catherine Crump, an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) staff attorney. Crump urged the Appeals Court to uphold the District Court’s decision to require a search warrant before attaching tracking devices to vehicles.
The Appeals Court dismissed the government’s argument that GPS tracking was legal due to probable cause. The judges stated, “Generally speaking, a warrant-less search is not rendered reasonable merely because probable cause existed that would have justified the issuance of a warrant.” The Appeals Court also rejected a government’s argument that a GPS search qualify for the automobile exception, which gives police leeway when searching through a suspect’s car. The appeals judges countered the argument stating, “A GPS search extends the police intrusion well past the time it would normally take officers to enter a target vehicle and locate, extract, or examine the then-existing evidence.”
redOrbitnotes that although the ruling prohibits law enforcement from placing GPS devices in suspects’ cars without a warrant, a previous federal appeals court ruling makes smartphone GPS data available to authorities because, as noted by the appeals court judges, sharing GPS data is not in violation of the Fourth Amendment since cell phone users do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when using mobile devices.
