High court: Warrant needed for GPS tracking

(CBS/AP) 

WASHINGTON — In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that police cannot attach a GPS device to a criminal suspect's car to track their movements without first obtaining a search warrant.

A GPS device had helped authorities link Washington, D.C., nightclub owner Antoine Jones to a suburban house used to stash money and drugs. He was sentenced to life in prison.

A federal appeals court in Washington had overturned Jones' drug conspiracy conviction because police did not have a warrant when they installed a GPS device on his vehicle and then tracked his movements for a month.

The Supreme Court agreed.

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said that the government's installation of a GPS device, and its use to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a search, meaning that a warrant is required.

"By attaching the device to the Jeep" that Jones was using, "officers encroached on a protected area," Scalia wrote.

CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen said today's decision was a victory for civil libertarians and a defeat for law enforcement officials who had argued that putting a GPS device on a car wasn't exactly a search under the Fourth Amendment.

"Perhaps the biggest surprise is that the justices were unanimous," said Cohen. "All of the Justices agreed that placing a GPS monitor on a suspect's car triggered the protections of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. But the Court didn't say whether the search here was reasonable or not."

Scalia wrote the main opinion of three in the case. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor.

Sotomayor also wrote one of the two concurring opinions that agreed with the outcome in the Jones case for different reasons.

Justice Samuel Alito also wrote a concurring opinion in which he said the court should have gone further and dealt with GPS tracking of wireless devices, like mobile phones. He was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

The case is U.S. v. Jones, 10-1259.

Cohen thinks the case, or one like it, may come before the court again, "because the justices did not rule on whether the exact search here was reasonable. In other words, even if the Fourth Amendment applies, it's possible that the use of GPS devices COULD be considered constitutional in SOME circumstances."

[MacDerb]

This also means that obtaining a warrant is not retroactive, not obtainable after the fact, and not attachable to any foreseeable conditions merely as an intimidation tactic.

[berlinfoto-2009]

I wonder how the Supreme Court would rule on the covert implanting of a RFID Microchip under the skin of an American Citizen?
These RFID Microchips exist, and a human can be tracked anywhere he goes as long he is in a cellular network area, or if there is a cellular service where he is he can be located.
If you do not think that the Government covertly implants these things then you are an idiot.
Ask your friendly veterinarian is a dog will even whimper when it is implanted.
Have you ever been bumped in the butt while riding on some public transportation system, then it is possible that you were microchipped, Check your lilly white under clothes for a little dot of red blood near the center where you were bumped. Then again most people probably do not even bleed a drop.

[ge556]

Did you just make this up? RFID cannot be tracked via the cell phone network.

[ge556]

I'll tell you what. Ask any veterinarian, "Can an RFID microchip be tracked with the cell phone network?"

[swiontek3625]

"Chief Justice Roberts asked the government lawyer if
it would be ok to put a GPS device on any of the Supreme
Court justices cars without a warrant. The lawyer said "yes"."

And the Supremes saw the light! 9-0

[goofygadget]

this could be wide open for abuse.ex.a detective wants to track his wife,ex,or even a business competitor, just keep it in check and get a warrant.

[bradkt1]

Although I agree with the decision, I was surprised by it. After all, the cops can search the inside of a car for contraband without a search warrant, but now they need a search warrant to determine where the vehicle goes by attacting a GPS device?

[democracy8]

Actually, they can't search your car without a warrant unless you give them permission to do so.. Now, if something is in plain sight, on the other hand...

[goofygadget]

not in louisiana ,they need your permission or a search warrent

[Brokennews]

I agree with the decision.

But how is a cop following where you go physically differ from a cop following where you go electronically?

As far as I know, the cops don't need a warrant to follow you around town, do they?

[John782011]

One of the discussions in the court was that following a suspect requires effort while just attaching a GPS for a period of time is more like using the person's own logs to tell the police where they have been. Your logs are private and require a warrant while their personal observations are not.

[jose_z1]

we'll have to wait on the obamacare descision to see exactly where these new justices stand.
.
.
.

[KnowerseekerReturns]

Score one for the Constitution?

[excop1949]

Okay...next time get a warrant, catch the bad guy...just a little more paperwork.

[mjlewis6]

The Car has been established as private property via sale, resale, registration for use on public roads...inspections for safe operations.

Had ALL CARS been owned by the state...then, have at it with the GPS devices...!!!At least ONE honest ruling by the Supreme Court to restrict the police state that law enforcement seeks to obtain with every new invention on the market.

[KnowerseekerReturns]

I agree.