In an eye-opening ruling out of the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in California, the Court found that law enforcement officers may secretly place a GPS device on a person’s car without seeking a warrant from a judge.
DEA agents in Oregon in 2007 secretly attached a GPS to a vehicle owned by a suspected drug dealer. When the suspect arrested and charged a critical piece of evidence was the GPS data, including the longitude and latitude of where the suspect’s vehicle was driven. Prosecutors asserted the Jeep had been driven several times to remote rural locations where DEA agents discovered marijuana being grown. (Read the full CNN article on the case here.)
While this decision directly effects those living in the 9th Circuit (California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Hawaii and Arizona), the issue nationally is far from over. A recent ruling out of the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals on a similar case ruled exactly the opposite; that federal agents were required to obtain a warrant prior to placing a GPS device on a suspect’s vehicle. Most observers believe that this issue is destined for a showdown in the Supreme Court.
Critics view the decision as another significant expansion of police power and a court approval of government invasion of privacy. The Court itself was sharply divided on the issue. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, wrote in his stinging dissent said the defendant’s driveway was private and that the decision would allow police to use tactics he called “creepy” and “underhanded.”
Proponents of the decision see the GPS trackers as a law enforcement tool that is no more intrusive than other means of surveillance, such as visually following a person, that do not require a court’s approval.
What are your thoughts? Are Courts allowing the government to invade our privacy?
Or are the use of GPS tracking devices the evolution of law enforcement technology and not an invasion of privacy?
Let us know your thoughts!