Supreme court seems troubled by police GPS tracking

WASHINGTON Tue Nov 8, 2011 2:29pm EST

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Supreme Court justices on Tuesday expressed concerns about the police secretly putting GPS devices on vehicles to track suspects' movements, comparing it to the Big Brother police state of the novel "1984."

If the Obama administration wins its case to allow vehicles to be tracked by global position system, Justice Stephen Breyer said, "Then there is nothing to prevent the police or the government from monitoring 24 hours a day the public movement of every citizen."

A government win would "suddenly produce what sounds like 1984," Breyer said in a reference to the famous George Orwell novel of 1949 that depicted pervasive government surveillance.

In the high court's first consideration of the issue in fighting crime, the justices questioned whether police tracking with GPS devices would invade citizens' basic constitutional privacy rights.

Police use of cell phones, surveillance cameras and even satellites could be affected by the case before the court.

It began in 2005 when police went to a public parking lot in Maryland and secretly installed a GPS device on a Jeep Grand Cherokee used by a Washington, D.C., nightclub owner, Antoine Jones. He was suspected of drug trafficking. Police tracked his movements for a month.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said he had "serious reservations" about the way the device had been installed.

Justice Antonin Scalia also expressed concern, calling it "unquestionably a trespass" by the police and saying the device was attached without Jones' knowledge or approval.

Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben of the U.S. Justice Department defended the use of the GPS device as legal, arguing it simply tracked movement on public streets and was no more intrusive than visual police surveillance.

He acknowledged that a GPS device perhaps can be viewed as a "1984" type invasion of privacy, but said it had not become a "massive universal use of an investigative technique" by the federal government.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that under the government's position anyone could be monitored after leaving their home and entering a vehicle. Only a person's home would be secure from intrusion, she said.


Justice Elena Kagan said a GPS device can track someone's movements 24 hours a day, wherever they go, and the data reported to the police. "That seems too much to me," she said.

Chief Justice John Roberts said to Dreeben that the normal way to handle questions such as the length of monitoring would be to get a judge's advance approval in a warrant.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked how far the government could go, questioning whether the police could put a computer chip in a person's overcoat or could monitor and track everyone through their cell phones. "That's really the bottom line," she said.

Attorney Stephen Leckar, arguing for Jones, said use of the GPS device was a grave threat and an abuse of privacy rights.

Justice Samuel Alito pressed him on where to draw the line and whether the police could use a GPS device to monitor a suspect just for several hours or for only one day.

Sotomayor asked whether the police can access satellite cameras that show a neighborhood and use that to monitor a person's movement from place to place. Leckar said the police would have to get a warrant.

A ruling is expected before June.

The Supreme Court case is United States v. Antoine Jones, No. 10-1259.

(Reporting by James Vicini; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Cynthia Osterman)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (8)
nagyja wrote:
I believe the Supreme Court will find a way to rule against this. Simply its the attempt by the police in general and more specifically the Executive branch to usurp powers vested in the judiciary. They are trying to remove judicial oversight from the equation. The Executive wants to remove the inherent benefit of the doubt that goes to citizens, to hasten and make easier its persecution of not just suspected criminals but just people of interest. The court has always stepped in and placed itself as the final impartial barrier between that and it will hopfully do so again.

Nov 08, 2011 3:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
HAL.9000 wrote:
“Then there is nothing to prevent the police or the government from monitoring 24 hours a day the public movement of every citizen.”

Actually no. It would be no different than needing a warrant to search someone’s premises. The police could not just arbitrarily tag someone’s car on a whim.

This would be a great tool for law enforcement.

Nov 08, 2011 7:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
educandi wrote:
Amazing. Don’t use technology past a certain point. It’s OK to use computers, but don’t use GPS to track someone. Can you imagine that police could not use undercover people to infiltrate suspected operations? Isn’t about time we got ourselves into the 21st century?

Nov 08, 2011 7:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.