Follow Newser on Twitter   Friend Newser on Facebook
Snappy newsletters. Simple Facebook sharing. Spirited comments. Sweet features are waiting… GET THEM NOW!

Supreme Court to Review Warrantless GPS Tracking

Justice take case on whether police need warrant to track people

By the Associated Press

Posted Jun 27, 2011 12:59 PM CDT

(AP) – The Supreme Court will weigh in on an important privacy issue for the digital age, whether the police need a warrant before using a global positioning system device to track a suspect's movements. The justices said today they will hear the Obama administration's appeal of a court ruling that favored a criminal defendant. The federal appeals court in Washington overturned a criminal conviction because the police had no warrant for the GPS device they secretly installed on a man's car.

The Justice Department argued that warrantless use of GPS devices does not violate the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches. It also said prompt resolution of the divergent court opinions is critically important to law enforcement. Other appeals courts have ruled that search warrants aren't necessary for GPS tracking.

Justice will decide whether police need a warrant to track people via GPS.
Justice will decide whether police need a warrant to track people via GPS.   (Shutterstock)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
My TakeCLICK BELOW TO VOTE
0%
25%
0%
0%
58%
17%
To report an error on this story, notify our editors.
A snapshot of the day's best news stories.
 
COMMENTS
Showing 3 of 5 comments
proud_prude
Jun 27, 2011 4:34 PM CDT
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The comments of fancygapva and brutaltruth were the first ones posted on this thread, and would seem to indicate agreement on newser across a wide spectrum of political "orientations." Yet strict constructionists might argue that this is not a "search" of one's person, house, papers or effects. After all, no warrant is required for a police "stake out" or for surveillance that includes investigators following the movements of an individual on foot or in a car.
fancygapva
Jun 27, 2011 3:04 PM CDT
Police state, here we come. Unless of course the defendant is rich enough to buy a SCOTUS or two.
brutaltruth
Jun 27, 2011 2:24 PM CDT
How hard is it to get a listening device (bug) approved by the court?  Same idea. Protect the citizen's rights, SCOTUS.

Copyright 2012 Newser, LLC. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. AP contributed to this report.

More Newser Stories

Strip-Search Case Proves Privacy Is Dead

Supreme Court Bans Warrantless GPS Tracking

Cops Don't Need Warrant to Track Cars With GPS

Supreme Court Takes Text Message Privacy Case

High Court Skeptical of Strip-Search Case


NEWS FROM OUR PARTNERS
Other Sites We Like:   24/7 Wall St.   |   BuzzFeed   |   Cracked   |   Timelines   |   Geek Sugar   |   Business Insider   |   HuffPost Entertainment