7 ms·
U.S. Supreme Court: GPS Trackers Are a Form of Search and Seizure
- johnbellone 12y agoThis is excellent news. I had begun to worry that the rapid advancement in technology may take awhile to hold up to scrutiny. We still need a clear concise decision in regards to software deployed on hardware for search purposes.
- dsp1234 12y agoNote that the opinion just says that it's a search within the fourth amendment context. The court did not make any determination on whether it was a reasonable search and/or seizure since the state court never even considered that aspect of the case. So yes, it's good that it's considered a search and/or seizure, but the case could still come back that it is reasonable, and thus legal.
- spiritplumber 12y agoStill a much greater hurdle for the securistas to have to surpass than if it wasn't!
- rlpb 12y agoAfter reading your point I wondered whether the "reasonable" distinction had any bearing on the requirement for a warrant. The warrant requirement is what I'm most interested in here. I came across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_exception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_exception which seems particularly relevant. Apparently motor vehicles have a lower expectation of privacy, so I wonder whether this means that a separate ruling is needed on whether GPS trackers on motor vehicles need a warrant.
- extra88 12y agoAs the article states, the Supreme Court has already ruled that putting a GPS tracker on a vehicle requires a warrant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012)
- _delirium 12y agoYes, this ruling is a pretty straightforward application of United States v. Jones, rather than much of a development in 4th-amendment law. The opinion [1] is 4 1/2 pages long, and doesn't do much more than say exactly that: it points out that the lower court's holding is plainly incompatible with Jones, and sends it back down to be reheard accordingly. [1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-593_o7jq.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-593_o7jq.pdf
- Shivetya 12y agoWhich is fine as well as that result could be taken to the Supreme Court. I do feel that life long requirements are just ridiculous, I can see wearing one during a probationary period provided that requirement is also on other probationers. However if your trying to only select one type of probationer then I have to ask, why are they out?
- CWuestefeld 12y agoI've long believed that the best way to interpret this part of the 4th Amendment is that people have a right to be free of scrutiny unless there's a reason to suspect something. If there's nobody with a legitimate belief that I'm doing something wrong, then nobody's got the right to poke into my business. My interpretation yields a pretty simple rule; the path we've been following for some time yields lots of exceptions and subjective judgments.
- rayiner 12y agoThat's not an interpretation rooted in the text of the amendment. An equally simple rule is that the government needs a warrant whenever a search impinges on your property right (person, house, papers, and effects are all things you have a property right in).
- lallysingh 12y agoSo how does this play into "metadata" phone tracking by the NSA? And Stingrays? AFAIK, those report positions.
- ceejayoz 12y agoI'd imagine the EFF is looking for an NSA/Stingray lawsuit to apply this decision to right now.
- afarrell 12y agoIt doesn't affect the NSA because the NSA never brings criminal charges against people, so they don't have to worry about a defense attorney getting their evidence suppressed. If you aren't familiar with suppression of evidence, here is an intro to the Exclusionary Rule: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1585 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1585
- phantom784 12y agoNow they need to say the same about those plate recognition systems. Different technology, same effect.
- mooredinty 12y agoSay what you will about Roberts, he has done a lot to advance individual freedoms in this court.
- owly 12y agoTrue. People polarize SC judges like they do politicians. However, they are often more nuanced in their decisions. You could strongly agree with some rulings AND strongly disagree with others from the same justice.
- owly 12y agoI wouldn't be surprised if a prosecutor used historic data of repeat sex offenders to justify it as a reasonable search. Given the horrors of sex crimes, particularly committed against children, I don't think this would be hard to argue.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- aNoob7000 12y agoI'm not sure if you read the article but this is monitoring after the individual has served his/her time.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- Lawtonfogle 12y agoSex offenders have one of the lowest rates of reoffending.
- strictnein 12y agoLink? Also, I'm sure any crime that puts you in jail for longer periods of time have lower rates of reoffending, since you're in jail. Murderers also likely have low rates of reoffending.
- bougiefever 12y agoYou mean murderers who have been caught. The rate of solving murders has declined a lot in the last 50 years. NPR just did a special on that, but I couldn't find the link. Does anyone know about the rate of re-offending of murderers who have not been caught? Of course, in order to find that out, you have to solve the murders and look at the behavior of the murderer before they were caught or died.
- Lawtonfogle 12y agoReoffense tends to be measure a number of years once released (such as 5 years) and not over a lifetime (because in that case the length of a prison sentence would matter). Part of it has to do with why crimes are committed. Most sex offenders and murders are not serial rapists/killers, and as such only offend in very specific situations (such as killing a wife who was caught cheating). These situations are likely to not happen again. Compare this to other crimes which are more related to crimes of need. Joining a gang for the protection it offers (even if it doesn't actually offer protection, the individuals think it does) is not a situation that goes away. If anything during prison they become closer to the gang as they group up within prison to survive. Someone who was addicted to drugs is really likely to relapse into their addiction. Most individuals selling drugs have even less legal opportunities to earn money once they get out than before. And this isn't even getting into the class aspect of things. It isn't something that is really captured in a single paper but rather a larger topic.
- forgotAgain 12y agoHopefully this kind of thinking is carried over to fake cell phone towers used to have individual's cell phones report in their location and usage.
- bougiefever 12y agoI'm so pleased this is a unanimous decision. I hope the phone metadata issue comes before the supreme court. If they are unanimous on this, then I would guess they would rule that metadata on cell phone use is in effect a GPS tracking method. It should fall under the same category.
- Tactic 12y agoMy reading of this is that the problem is less with the data and more with the placing of a tracker on a person or their property because the fourth amendment says you have a right to be secure in those things.
- rayiner 12y agoThis and the earlier GPS case, Jones, aren't based on some broad idea that the government can't track you without a warrant. They're based on the fact that placing the GPS on your vehicle violates your property right. You don't have any property right in phone metadata--it's the phone companies data collected for its own purposes. This doesn't apply to Stingray either. In the GPS cases, the government is putting a device on your car that broadcasts your position. With a stingray, your cell phone is reaching out into the world and giving you away.
- nickff 12y agoThe comment above (by rayiner) is completely correct. Cell phone tracking has more to do with third party doctrine and the Stored Communications Act than with this case.[1][2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act
- tdaltonc 12y agoQuestion about the third party doctrine. If I hand google drive an encrypted file, do I have a reasonable expectation of the privacy wrt the decrypted data?
- afarrell 12y agoRemember folks, this doesn't prevent the government from tracking you; It just means that if they try to use the evidence gained from tracking you in a court of law, you can pay a lawyer to get that evidence suppressed. The CIA can still use tracking devices and so can the police in a state without good public defenders. If you aren't familiar with suppression of evidence, here is an intro to the Exclusionary Rule: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1585 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1585
- rhino369 12y agoThis isn't true. §1983 gives you civil remedies for violation of your rights, including attorney's fees and punitive damages. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I believe you could also seek an injunction to force the government to stop.
- suprgeek 12y agoI wonder if this will result in a blanket requirement that getting ANY GPS data for an American Person would require a warrant. The significance is that this pertains to a "GPS Tracer/Tracker" being "attached". How about a modern smartphone? (As the article touches upon) Is the mere presence of an already attached GPS system enough to trigger the purview of this ruling? I suspect not but hopefully this will be put to the test soon.
- voxic11 12y agoNo if you read the opinion they very specifically do not rule on whether collecting the data is legal, they only ruled that in the case of GPS trackers you must actually place the tracker on the item to be tracked which is considered trespass of property which means it requires a warrant.
- nzealand 12y agoThey have only said GPS trackers are a form of search. They haven't determined if GPS Trackers are an unreasonable form of search for a recidivist sex offender.
- dmitrygr 12y agoGood: the decision Bad: the reasoning. They literally weaselled out of ruling on actual data and the implications of collecting it, instead ruling on the fact that TO collect the data, the tracker must be placed on your or your property, which would be trespassing. This makes the ruling useless precedent-wise, and gives the government a simple hurdle to jump over - find a way to attach tracker to person/device that the SCOTUS would not find to be a trespass. This is similar to the earlier case (which they ruled the same on for the same treason) UNITED STATES v. JONES ( http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf ) I really wish they'd collect their balls, and actually rule on the real issue at hand. They even mention in the USA v Jones case that they realize that they will eventually have to. See page 32. They clearly understand what is at hand and why it is important. Just do it already!
- arjunnarayan 12y agoThis is actually a good thing. They found a way to do the right thing in the context of this case, with as little side effect as possible. No matter how much I too wish for that side effect, it's important to recognize that the less the judicial branch legislates from the bench, the better off we are.
- linkregister 12y agoI think it's safe to say the vast majority of HN readers (and myself) agree with you, but historically, the SC tries to make the narrowest decision possible. When the SC makes overly broad decisions, they have been ignored by the executive and legislative branches. The most famous such case is Dred Scott v Sanford, where the executive and the legislature refused to enforce the broad judgement that slavery be protected, and popular sovereignty be disregarded, in the territories. [1] Note that the court is also taking this gradual, narrow approach with regard to gay and lesbian rights, starting with the Defense of Marriage Act and continuing with the challenges of the constitutionality of marriage restrictions in the states. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford