Jan 24 2012

Supreme Court Rules Against Unauthorized Use of GPS Tracking Devices

Listen to this segment | entire program

In a decision announced yesterday, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that GPS tracking devices placed on vehicles by law enforcement during surveillance operations must be treated as a type of search, regulated under the 4th amendment. In the case United States v Jones, FBI agents kept Washington DC nightclub owner Antoine Jones under surveillance for months, watching as he crossed from DC to Maryland and back. In addition to using other tracking methods, the FBI followed Jones’ movements for 28 days via a surreptitiously placed GPS device on his car. The FBI operation led to the seizure of 100 kilograms of cocaine and $1 million dollars linked to Jones, as well as to his arrest and conviction. However a Colombia Appeals court overturned the conviction on the grounds that the government conducted an unreasonable search. The Supreme Court upheld the overturned conviction but on different grounds, and split somewhat on the reasoning. The Department of Justice had argued that use of a GPS device did not rise to the level of a 4th amendment issue because citizens do not have a reasonable expectation to privacy on public streets. The nine Justices disagreed, ruling, “[w]e hold that the government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search.’” They found that placing a GPS device on a vehicle constituted a trespass of a suspect’s private property. The decision is being widely interpreted as a warning to law enforcement to obtain warrants for both installing and tracking GPS devices. Writing for the SCOTUS blog, Tom Goldstein says the Justices split 5-4 on whether the use of a GPS tracker over extended periods of time by police also violates a suspects “reasonable expectation to privacy” or constitutes an unreasonable search.

GUEST: Shahid Buttar, Executive Director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee

Visit www.bordc.org for more information about the Bill of Rights Defense Committee.

3 responses so far

3 Responses to “Supreme Court Rules Against Unauthorized Use of GPS Tracking Devices”

  1. David Eon 25 Jan 2012 at 4:51 am

    Because of this recent court decision, Americans and it’s politicians should take notice that for once in a great while the 9 justices agreed, “Privacy”, therefore “HOMELAND STUPIDITY” should take notice, here’s your unwarranted survrillance and shove it up your “ASS”

  2. David Eon 25 Jan 2012 at 4:54 am

    US District Court, Tampa 8:11CV2018, 8:11CV2817, it’s only the begining!

  3. Kini Cosmaon 09 Feb 2012 at 3:35 pm

    I was profiled as a lesbian and wrongfully convicted of “stalking”. The status was enhanced with a “sex offense” when I was sent to prison. As a result of my legal battles against the U.S. Government, I have become an unfavorable person suffering retaliation because I refuse to service American men.

    Because of the selfish reasons of others who conspired for my false imprisonment, other malicious prosecutions and judicial injustice has taken place.

    Impropriety, prosecution for the sake of prosecution, lack of funds for legal aid to prove my innocence and/or other errors of one kind or another, has occurred.

    They have left me to languish resulting in loss of liberty, civil rights, productive lifestyles, financial and personal ruin, mental anguish, social condemnation and personal and family embarassment for the remainder of my life.

    U.S. officials refuse to grant me asylum or grant me protection from persecution as a result my $100k was wrongfully seized and I loss custody of my two sons. I have also lost other property by wrongful confiscated by U.S. authorities. All of this has deeply affected my health.

    In order to qualify as a refugee and be granted asylum in the United States, an individual must have a “well-founded fear of persecution on account of” one of five grounds, which are (1) race, (2) religion, (3) nationality, (4) membership in a particular social group, and (5) political opinion.

    The information contained on http://judiciary.zoomshare.com will reveal a pattern of gender discrimination. You will understand why women in prison are placed in cages. You will understand why women in prison spit at officials only to have their mouths forcibly shrouded. You will begin to understand why women in America are finally waking up advancing Jihad Janes.

    In addition to demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution, the harm feared is being inflicted by the government…and by persons and organizations that the government is unable or unwilling to control.

  • Program Archives