7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals okays surreptitious GPS tracking by police February 4, 2007
Posted by Rich in : GPS tracking and privacy, GPS tracking law, GPS vehicle tracking , trackbackOn February 2, the 7th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, ruled against a defendant who claimed that the surreptitious placement of a GPS tracking device amounted to an unconstitutional search. From the court’s decision:
The police had not obtained a warrant authorizing them to place the GPS tracker on the defendant’s car. The district judge, however, found that they had had a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity, and she ruled that reasonable suspicion was all they needed for a lawful search, although she added that they had had probable cause as well. The
defendant argues that they needed not only probable cause to believe that the search would turn up contraband or evidence of crime, but also a warrant. The government argues that they needed nothing because there was no search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
So the gist of it comes down to this. The fourth amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, but the judges ruled that the placement of a GPS tracking device without the suspect’s knowledge, does not qualify as a search of his car.
This is the first time the seventh circuit has weighed in on this issue, which other circuits have split on. The court equated GPS tracking to police physically following a car, or monitoring safety cameras to follow a car, neither of which amounts to illegal search and seizure.
The court did note that wholesale surveillance of the entire population is another matter entirely.
Finally, I did chuckle at this and wonder if the judges really believe that Google Earth allows real time tracking:
But if police follow a car around, or observe its route by means of cameras mounted on lampposts or of
satellite imaging as in Google Earth, there is no search.Read the full court decision on surreptitious GPS tracking (Case number 06-2741 : USA v. Garcia, Bernardo).
Related post: Does GPS tracking by police amount to an illegal search?
Comments»
[…] It’s one thing to offload (illegally) a dozen or so GPS units from a storage facility and beg the police to nab you by leaving them turned on, but for the boys in blue to slide a tracking device into your ride to keep dibs on your doings, well that’s another matter entirely. Earlier this month, the Seventh Circuit of the US Court of Appeals “ruled against a defendant who claimed that the surreptitious placement of a GPS tracking device amounted to an unconstitutional search,” essentially giving the coppers the green light to add a GPS module to a suspicious ride sans a warrant. While we’re sure the privacy advocates out there are screaming bloody murder, the district judge found that they had had a “reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity,” and it seems that a well-placed hunch is all they need for lawful placement. Interestingly, the government argues that no warrant was needed since “there was no search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment,” but did add that “wholesale surveillance of the entire population” was to be viewed differently. So while this may come as a shock to some folks out there, it’s not like your vehicles have been entirely devoid of data capturing devices up until now anyway, so here’s fair warning to be on your best behavior when rolling about. […]
[…] It’s one thing to offload (illegally) a dozen or so GPS units from a storage facility and beg the police to nab you by leaving them turned on, but for the boys in blue to slide a tracking device into your ride to keep dibs on your doings, well that’s another matter entirely. Earlier this month, the Seventh Circuit of the US Court of Appeals “ruled against a defendant who claimed that the surreptitious placement of a GPS tracking device amounted to an unconstitutional search,” essentially giving the coppers the green light to add a GPS module to a suspicious ride sans a warrant. While we’re sure the privacy advocates out there are screaming bloody murder, the district judge found that they had had a “reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity,” and it seems that a well-placed hunch is all they need for lawful placement. Interestingly, the government argues that no warrant was needed since “there was no search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment,” but did add that “wholesale surveillance of the entire population” was to be viewed differently. So while this may come as a shock to some folks out there, it’s not like your vehicles have been entirely devoid of data capturing devices up until now anyway, so here’s fair warning to be on your best behavior when rolling about. […]
[…] In something that is bound to get appealed and moved up the line, the 7th circuit said that leaving a GPS module on your car without you knowing about it was just fine: The police had not obtained a warrant authorizing them to place the GPS tracker on the defendant’s car. The district judge, however, found that they had had a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity, and she ruled that reasonable suspicion was all they needed for a lawful search, although she added that they had had probable cause as well. The defendant argues that they needed not only probable cause to believe that the search would turn up contraband or evidence of crime, but also a warrant. The government argues that they needed nothing because there was no search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Posted by raffi Filed in Uncategorized […]
I say let them put a device on your car and then find the thing and keap it. Mod it, play with it etc… Hell get em to put one on once a day:-)
Try this link to get the opinion, as the link above was doa.
OK, it stripped the html. You can figure this one out:
www dot ca7.uscourts dot gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=06-2741&submit=showdkt
Link is dead, please cite the case.
Thanks. The link is fixed and the case number cited.
By taking these tactics the executive agencies of our government are starting to look more like the terrorists they hunt. If the officer planting the device is in plainclothes how are onlookers to distinguish between this and attempts at assassination or terrorism? I doubt anyone tryint to report such an incident will walk up to the plain clothes officer and ask for ID before notifying authorities. And if the left and right hands of the authorities aren’t on top of things it’s going to be a terrible mess. Clearly the recent incident in Boston shows that such scares can be very costly and triggered by even more mundane devices.
Terrorism is already hard enough to recognize before it’s too late. The government should not adopt practices that could easily be mistaken for terrorism. Otherwise it risks incurring substantial costs during an accidental panic and it desensitizes the populace.
Furthermore, what about surveillance of phones with GPS capabilities? If it doesn’t involve placing a GPS tracking device owned by the government does it still avoid search and seizure rules?
this is completely fucked up
I really do not see how attaching a tracking device to a privately-owned vehicle does not amount to a search. It’s using someone’s property (vehicle for mounting the device; powering it perhaps) without their (or a court’s) consent, which in my view amounts to theft.
It seems a bit weak that the argument the authorities had “reasonable suspicion” anyway therefore justifies a warrantless search. “reasonable suspicion”, and swearing it out in an affidavit and then getting a sleepy judge or justice of the peace to bless it is all that’s required to obtain a legal search warrant. If your case meets the standard - get the warrant. It’s very simple. It takes very little time.
Again, we see the authorities chipping away at the now battered wall of protections that have kept our nation from slipping into authoritarian tyranny, all to service the alleged convenience of the executive branch officers.
The courts are supposed to protect us, but in this case they’ve become first class enablers.
Hopefully, this decision will not withstand further appeal. It deserves to be thrown out on its ear, along with the alleged lawyers who argued for it.
Using their reasoning, I should be able to put GPS tracking devices on police cars. I would like to be able to know where they all are so that I know when to slow down to the posted limit.
I think the judge was fine in using Google Earth as an example. It’s not navigational but locational surveillance. Consider the following: suppose a ‘poor’ individual had a lavish pool in his back yard along with several fancy cars (they’d need to be parked in the open, of course). This evidence of money above and beyond a person’s reported earnings might suggest illicit, say drug related, activity. This is indeed a potential use of geographic information technologies for broader surveillance.
A better analogy for the judge would have been to refer to RFIDs (i.e., for tracking individual movement as opposed to vehicular movement). Big potential problem for the smart passports.
The easies thing to do to stop this kind of abuse it to turn the law back around on those who abuse it. By placing tracking devices on the car of the judges who rule in favor of this and the private cars of the police chief, police chiefs wife, and others involved ect. As they have no reasonable expectation of privacy as they are in public and can be monitored just as every one else could. Then after you gather enough embracing data on three habits publish it in a newspaper. Give them a little taste of thee own justice.
[…] [via GPS Tracking Systems blog] […]
This is an invasion of privacy just as it would be for the enforcers to watch your movements inside your house with infrared cameras.
>I say let them put a device on your car and then find the thing and keep it. Mod it, play with it etc
Go to the nearest truck stop and stick it on a cross-country semi. Trade them with your friends. Gotta catch ‘em all!
>By taking these tactics the executive agencies of our government are starting to look more like the terrorists they hunt.
Starting to? Where have you been since 2000?
>This evidence of money above and beyond a person’s reported earnings might suggest illicit, say drug related, activity.
It might also suggest a lot of completely legal things which don’t justify the surveillance without a warrant. Plenty of rich people (especially ones who live near “poor” people) feel they have perfectly good reason for others to not know how much money they have or how they spend it.
>The easies thing to do to stop this kind of abuse it to turn the law back around on those who abuse it. By placing tracking devices on the car of the judges who rule in favor of this and the private cars of the police chief, police chiefs wife, and others involved etc. As they have no reasonable expectation of privacy as they are in public and can be monitored just as every one else could.
Indeed. We want a “Where are YOUR public servants?” website running 24-7. Even better if we can see who they’re talking to and who they’re avoiding.
When the little magnetic anti-theft doohickeys started coming out (the little tinfoil and paper ones), I started collecting them from things I bought. Clothes, music, etc. Then one day I walked into a public library forgetting I had a little card with about 20 styles of them in my pocket. Oops. It was much more amusing dropping them in people’s pockets at the mall.
check your car often
Look, it’s merely an electronic version of putting a detective in an unmarked car and following you around. There is no need for a search warrant to tail a suspect, and the GPS tracker is nothing more than that. The only issue is the putting of a device on your car, in essence tampering with your vehicle and here I have mixed feelings: I can see the utility, but on the other hand my small L libertarian and constitutionalist side says it’s a step over the bar.
It’s the ’slippery slope’ thing all over again. We now know these judges are routinely and recklessly violating their sworn Oaths of Office, grounds for immediate suspension and serious prosecution under the law. For someone-ANYONE-to touch your vehicle/property, especially through the condoned (legalized) use of outright deceit and artiface–is clearly WRONG. Lie to the cops– you go to jail, and ya don’t get the $200 either! Yet they routinely LIE and use KNOWN, intentional and purposeful outright DECEIT with the public as a matter of course, as with this GPS device case. Don’t think OnStar and LoJack are there for you…uh-uh! There is much more there than you think or want to know. Something is very wrong with this picture! Everyone knows that police everywhere can and do commit blatant and willing perjury in court more often than not, and they often will say, “The end (a conviction at any or all costs) justifies the means.” That’s frightening, but it’s absolutely true, sad to say, folks! They often intentionally and knowingly break the law in the name of enforcing it, trusting they will not get caught by an aware, savvy and legally knowledgeable citizen, or that the judge will rule with them and against the accused as a matter of course. Truly a sad state of affairs for everyone. The picture isn’t pretty, but it is oh-so-real.
Having studied the technology and the law concerning these items, which by the way are LEGAL for me to use in my work or play, I want to shed a little light on things.
1. The judge has a point, its not a search or seizure.
2. “…and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…”, and that is a DIRECT QUOTE from the 4th ammendment to the US Constitution, which indicates to me that the judge needs a refresher course on constitutional law ( do judges need CEU’s)
3. Besides the fact that it necissarily requires tampering with a vehicle (no it doesn’t rise to the level of theft at least in WA or CA because it doesn’t deprive the owner of the use of the property) It facilitates an invasion of privacy (or upon seclusion in some jurisdictions) by tracking a vehicle in a place where the law enforcement officers do not have a legal right to be
WOOOOOOOW!!!!!!!!!!!
Robert, I’ll bet you got fired huh?
It’s no different than parking on the street, waiting for you to leave, and following you to where you go.
There is no expectation of privacy when someone is driving on the street. You do not have a cloaking device, you use public streets to go from A to B, and you see everyone else driving too. In other words, you are driving in plain sight of everyone that sees you. It is obvious that the courts ruled that this is not a “search” since there is no expectation of privacy. If you really want to sound like you know what you are talking about read the 4th ammendment and other case law before you disagree. Additionally, it’s not like thay need to hard wire it to your car anymore. They make self contained units that can attach by magnet available all over the internet now.
Today a New York intermediate appellate court ruled that surreptitious monitoring of a suspect by placement of a hidden GPS device behind a bumper, for example, of the suspect’s auto is legal and not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, that is, not a circumstance requiring the police to obtain a warrant from a neutral judge. No probable cause required.