Supreme Court rules police need warrant for GPS tracking

WASHINGTON Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:41pm EST

1 of 2. Security guards walk the steps of the Supreme Court in Washington, October 1, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Larry Downing

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that police cannot put a GPS device on a suspect's car to track his movements without a warrant, a test case that upholds basic privacy rights in the face of new surveillance technology.

The high court ruling was a defeat for the Obama administration, which had argued that a warrant was not required to use global positioning system devices to monitor a vehicle on public streets.

The justices unanimously upheld a precedent-setting ruling by a U.S. appeals court that the police must first obtain a warrant to use a GPS device for an extended period of time to covertly follow a suspect.

The high court ruled that placement of a device on a vehicle and using it to monitor the vehicle's movements was covered by U.S. constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures of evidence.

There are no precise statistics on how often police in the United States use GPS tracking in criminal investigations. But the Obama administration told the court last year it was used sparingly by federal law enforcement officials.

The American Civil Liberties Union rights group hailed the ruling as an important victory for privacy. "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," Steven Shapiro of the ACLU said.

"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," he said.


The case began in 2005 when police officers 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.

Jones was suspected of drug trafficking and the police tracked his movements for a month. The resulting evidence played a key role in his conviction for conspiring to distribute cocaine.

The appeals court had thrown out Jones's conviction and his

life-in-prison sentence, and ruled prolonged electronic monitoring of the vehicle amounted to a search.

All nine justices agreed in upholding the appeals court decision, but at least four justices would have gone even further in finding fault not only with the attachment of the device, but also with the lengthy monitoring.

In summarizing the court's majority opinion from the bench, Justice Antonin Scalia said attachment of the device by the police was a trespass and an improper intrusion of the kind that would have been considered a search when the Constitution was adopted some 220 years ago.

The administration argued that even if it were a search, it was lawful and reasonable under the Constitution. Scalia said his opinion did not decide that issue and some more difficult problems that may emerge in a future case, such as a six-month monitoring of a suspected terrorist.

Joining Scalia's opinion were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor.

Sotomayor wrote separately to say the case raised difficult questions about individual privacy expectations in a digital age, but said the case could be decided on narrower grounds over the physical intrusion in attaching the device.


Justice Samuel Alito wrote a separate opinion that Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined. He wrote that he would have decided the case by holding that Jones's reasonable privacy expectations were violated by long-term monitoring of his vehicle's movements.

Alito said in recent years many new devices have emerged that track a person's movements, including video surveillance in some cities, automatic toll collection systems on roads, devices on cars that disclose their location, cell phones and other wireless devices.

"The availability and use of these and other new devices will continue to shape the average person's expectations about the privacy of his or her daily movements," he wrote.

One law professor said those four justices were clearly concerned about the potential impact of new technologies and believed extended monitoring likely required a warrant so law enforcement should "be on the safe side and get a warrant."

"This is an indication that there are justices who are recognizing that privacy norms are shifting but the fact that people's lives take place increasingly online does not mean that society has decided that there's no such thing as privacy anymore," said Joel Reidenberg, a law professor at Fordham University in New York.

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

(Reporting By James Vicini; Editing by Will Dunham)

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 (3)
2ctruth wrote:
Maybe there is still hope for the U.S. Constitution. No if only they would address NDAA 1021.

Jan 23, 2012 10:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Intriped wrote:
They will still do it, they just will not be able to use it as evidence for anything. The Real World!

Jan 24, 2012 1:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
reddragon696 wrote:
It is good to see that The SCOTUS is looking out for Individual Rights, at least part of the time. Makes one wonder though just how many hundreds if not thousands of peoples’ Privacy Rights were violated while SCOTUS took its time deciding this issue. Now if they will just rule that warrantless spying by Police Drones like the ones they have applied to use in the Texas and Arizona Sheriffs Departments are illegal without a warrant. The LEOs will continue to utilize these tracking and spying devices; that were made for the Military; on private citizens until SCOTUS makes a broad enough ruling that they are ALL illegal without a warrant. Whenever the LEOs refuse to get a warrant to use some form of spying device on Us,The People, it makes me wonder just exactly what illegal act the LEOs are trying to hide. I think that the LEOs know that, on its face, these laws are morally as well as factually illegal but they will continue to use them on people since it takes months if not years for a case to make its way through SCOTUS and be ruled illegal. Of course, SCOTUS doesn’t always rule in our favour. They still allow ‘No Knock’ Warrants to be served by masked and unidentified Police in the wee hours of the mornings and We, The People, have NO idea just who these ‘LEOs’ are since we have to take their word for it that their Name/Badge Numbers are correct since they often have them covered up and one of the quickest ways to get your teeth knocked out by the Police; as seen on numerous citizen videos; is to question their identity when they decide not to give it to you. Just look at the amount of Cities and States that are now making it illegal to videotape the Police or take their pictures now. Once these things are made illegal We, The People, will have no way at all to prove that the LEOs may or may not be breaking the law when they break down our doors and kick in our teeth.

Jan 24, 2012 5:29am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.