Probable Cause and Criminal Procedure
The GPS Act Would Safeguard the Rights of the Innocent
U.S. News
New technologies are improving our quality of life but there are also issues surrounding their indiscriminate use, especially when used in the course of law enforcement. One application that is causing a great deal of controversy is the Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking technology that allows real-time management, monitoring, and protection of data and personal property. Unfortunately, these technologies can also be used to track private citizens without their knowledge.
There are many people who feel that the use of a GPS system to track an individual or an entity without permission violates the 4th Amendment right to privacy, as well as the 4th Amendment’s protection against unlawful search and seizure of property. Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has interpreted the 4th Amendment to require law enforcement agents to obtain a warrant prior to search, and to show probable cause before obtaining a warrant. Probable cause refers to facts or evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed, or that a crime is in the process of being committed, or that it can be reasonably assumed that a crime is about to be committed. These facts or evidence must be presented in a warrant affidavit, which is then evaluated by a judge pursuant to granting a warrant.
In United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. ____ (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court held that (1) the physical attachment of a GPS device to a vehicle constitutes a search under the 4th Amendment, and (2) admission of evidence obtained by warrantless use of a GPS device violated the 4th Amendment. What is interesting abut this case is that the law enforcement officers had followed the rules and obtained a warrant prior to the placement of the GPS device on the defendant’s wife’s vehicle; however, the officers failed to adhere to the provisions of the warrant, thus rendering the warrant invalid. However, the court had nothing to say regarding all other GPS applications, and left it up to Congress to draft more comprehensive legislation.
For this reason, Jason Chaffetz, a U.S. Representative from Utah, recently introduced the Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance Act that aims to clarify the type of information that government agencies, commercial entities, and individuals may access and use, as well as define the circumstances under which such information may be accessed or used. For example, the GPS Act would require law enforcement officers to show probable cause before obtaining a warrant to acquire GPS information on an individual or an individual’s property. The GPS Act would also provide exceptions to the Act, for example, in cases of emergencies or national security. And of course, the “reasonable” exception might also apply.
The rationale of the act is that the low cost of GPS tracking exposes the rights of an individual to considerable danger, while requiring a warrant places no extra burden on the law enforcement system, thus it is reasonable and appropriate to require law enforcement agents to procure a warrant before a GPS “search.” Under the act, GPS information acquired without a warrant will become subject to the Exclusionary Rule, while individuals who use GPS devices to acquire information will be subject to both traditional civil liability under trespass as well as any criminal liability defined by the Act. Thus, the Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance Act would protect the constitutional rights of the individual without placing undue burden on law enforcement agencies.
References
Chaffetz, J. (2012). The GPS Act would safeguard the rights of the innocent. U.S. News
online. Access at:
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-probable-cause-be-required-for-police-to-use-cell-phone-location-data/the-gps-act-would-safeguard-the-rights-of-the-innocent
Constitution of the Unite States. Access at:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html/
United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. ____ (2012)
