The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling on Jan. 23 that said law enforcement has to obtain warrants before using GPS tracking devices on suspects’ vehicles, could show the court is ready to address the Constitutional implications of other advancing surveillance technology, said privacy groups.
The Supreme Court ruled on Jan. 23 that the police’s placement of a GPS tracking device on a suspected drug dealer’s car without a court warrant violated Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful searches. The court’s ruling came in United States v. Jones in which the District of Columbia police attached a GPS device to a drug-dealer suspect Antoine Jones’ Jeep without his knowledge. Police used the device to track the position of Jones’ vehicle for a month in 2005 without a search warrant. Jones was subsequently charged with involvement in a drug conspiracy on the basis of evidence obtained by the device.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) said in statements following the ruling that the decision could signal the court is prepared to address the Constitutionality of other advancing surveillance technologies.
“While this case turned on the fact that the government physically placed a GPS device on the defendant’s car, the implications are much broader,” and ACLU Legal Director Steven Shapiro said in a Jan. 23 statement. “A majority of the Court acknowledged that advancing technology, like cell phone tracking, gives the government unprecedented ability to collect, store and analyze an enormous amount of information about our private lives. Today’s decision suggests that the court is prepared to address that problem. Congress needs to address the problem as well,” he said.
“EFF was particularly gratified to see Justice Sotomayor, in concurrence, raising concerns about the failure of the Fourth Amendment caselaw to keep up with the realities of today’s digital technologies,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann on the organization’s Web Blog.
http://liarcatchers.com/electronic_surveillance.html
“People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers, the URLS that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers, and the books, groceries and medications they purchase to online retailers…,” said Sotomayor in her opinion. “I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection.”
