GPS Tracking Systems » GPS tracking law

California struggles with GPS tracking of sex offenders

Rich — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:33:38 +0000

California’s Proposition 83, AKA Jessica’s law, passed by voters in 2006, continues to be problematic. The Schwarzenegger administration is currently trying to determine whether the state or counties are responsible for the required lifetime GPS tracking of sex offenders, once they complete parole. In the meanwhile, GPS tracking is being discontinued once an offender finishes parole.

The issues include both who will do the monitoring and who will pay for the program, whose costs are conservatively estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Via NBC11.com.

GPS detectors, jammers and spoofers

Rich — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:12:15 +0000

Susan Brenner, a law professor specializing in cybercrime, has posted an article on GPS detectors, jammers and spoofers on her blog CYB3RCRIM3. It takes a while before she gets to the meat of it, but it’s a worthwhile read.

Along the way, she compares and contrasts state and federal treatment of radar detectors, how these devices could be used by criminals, the ability of government to outlaw tools that can be used in committing a crime, and public safety hazards associated with use of these devices.

Some basic points:

GPS detectors

It is not technically possible to detect a GPS receiver, only those devices which transmit your position.

GPS jamming devices

Apparently, these are not illegal in the U.S., though Ms. Brenner makes a case that they can (and should be) made illegal.

GPS spoofers

She also feels that spoofers, devices which can cause false location information to be received and therefore transmitted, also warrant outlawing.

Mercedes-Benz ignores two court orders to track hit and run driver before complying

Rich — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:38:13 +0000

Last Tuesday night, 24-year-old Elizabeth Sandoval was killed by a hit and run driver in Glendale, California. Thanks to witness descriptions, the car and license tag were identified. Last Friday, Glendale Police Chief Randy Adams…

…admonished Mercedes-Benz of North America for refusing to comply with a court order to activate the car’s standard Global Positioning System so that authorities might pinpoint the sedan’s exact location.

“It’s one of the most frustrating thing in my 35 years of law enforcement,” he told reporters.

A court order police obtained at 2:30 p.m. Friday was faxed to Mercedes-Benz North American headquarters in New Jersey and to the company that provides the global positioning satellite service, Irving, Texas-based Tele-Aid.

A second court order was rebuffed as well before Mercedes-Benz of North America complied. The car was recovered (but not the suspect) only after Mercedes complied with the court orders. Perhaps a more timely response would have yielded the suspect as well.

It makes you wonder what kind of policy companies have on releasing GPS tracking information to law enforcement officials. Personally, I am amazed that they refused to comply.

Via Digg.

UPDATE: A couple of submitted (but unpublished) comments caused me to publish a comment policy.

7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals okays surreptitious GPS tracking by police

Law professors – Lifetime GPS tracking unconstitutional

Rich — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 21:07:32 +0000

Three University of Wisconsin – Madison law professors are taking issue with a state law that mandates lifetime GPS monitoring of sex offenders.

The measure violates privacy rights and amounts to punishment and warrantless surveillance when applied to offenders who aren’t on parole or government supervision, the professors said in a letter sent to Corrections Secretary Matthew Frank on Feb. 3.

Another issue is that while offenders would be banned from certain areas (near schools, etc.) and authorities alerted if they enter those zones, nothing in the law gives police the authority to stop them from entering them. Weird.

GPS monitoring is seen as a panacea when it comes to child molesters, but it is far from perfect. The bracelets can be removed, GPS jamming devices concocted and, unless these are very high quality devices, they may not transmit indoors. I think that many politicians are looking for an easy way to appear tough on sex offenders, but they may be lulling the public into a false sense of security.

Related post: GPS tracking of sex offenders

7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals okays surreptitious GPS tracking by police

Rich — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 16:32:57 +0000

On 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?

Interested in GPS? Check out our other site, GPS Tracklog, for GPS reviews, news, tips and tricks.

GPS tracking of employees in Canada

Rich — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 00:15:09 +0000

Canadian federal privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart has warned Canadian businesses about GPS tracking of employees. In the end, she seemed to concede that both employees and employers have rights in this arena:

The privacy commissioner accepted that the company’s use of GPS could help locate missing vehicles and help dispatch employees to improve customer service.

However, the commissioner expressed concern about the use of GPS as an employee surveillance tool.

She concluded that it might be acceptable in certain situations — which are defined and communicated to employees beforehand — to use GPS as an employee surveillance tool.

“Systematically using GPS to check up on workers and try to determine how well they are doing their jobs would be going too far,” Stoddart said. “Employers do not have carte blanche to use GPS to constantly monitor their workforce.”

Technorati tags: GPS tracking, GPS surveillance

Does GPS tracking by police amount to an illegal search?

Rich — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:26:35 +0000

CYB3RCRIM3, a blog by Susan Brenner, a law professor specializing in cybercrime, has an excellent two-part post on GPS tracking and the fourth amendment (here is a link to part two). This is a complex subject, as you might gather from this snippet:

Putting the device on a vehicle is not, I would submit, a “search” because a search violates a valid 4th Amendment expectation of privacy. The issue that’s coming up in these cases is whether the 4th Amendment is implicated when a tracking device is installed on a “public” area of a vehicle: under a bumper, on the undercarriage, etc. It’s clear that officers cannot go into “private” areas of a vehicle (the trunk, under the hood, inside the passenger compartment, etc.) without having a warrant; that would clearly be a search regardless of whether their motive is to install a tracking device or just to look around (or both). When the devices are installed on areas that are, at least arguably, accessible to the general public, I don’t think we can legitimately characterize the act of installing them as a “search.” After all, what “private” information do the officers obtain by doing so?

I tend to think, though, that the act of installing a tracking device on such a “public” area of a vehicle is a seizure under the 4th Amendment. Seizures occur when agents of the government interfere with someone’s possession and use of their vehicle. Now, when an officer sneaks up to a car at night or at some other time when it is parked and is not being used by the owner and installs a GPS device, there would not seem to be any particular interference with the owner’s possession and use of the property. The owner never even knows what’s happened – that’s the whole point.

Technorati tag: GPS tracking