August 6th, 2010
Court Rejects Warrantless GPS Tracking
EFF-ACLU Arguments Against Always-On Surveillance Win The Day
Washington, D.C. - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit today firmly rejected government claims that federal
agents have an unfettered right to install Global Positioning System
(GPS) location-tracking devices on anyone's car without a search
warrant.
In United States v. Maynard, FBI agents planted a GPS device on a car
while it was on private property and then used it to track the
position of the automobile every ten seconds for a full month, all
without securing a search warrant. In an amicus brief filed in the
case, EFF and the ACLU of the Nation's Capital argued that
unsupervised use of such tactics would open the door for police to
abuse their power and continuously track anyone's physical location
for any reason, without ever having to go to a judge to prove the
surveillance is justified.
The court agreed that such round-the-clock surveillance required a
search warrant based on probable cause. The court expressly rejected
the government's argument that such extended, 24-hours-per-day
surveillance without warrants was constitutional based on previous
rulings about limited, point-to-point surveillance of public
activities using radio-based tracking beepers. Recognizing that the
Supreme Court had never considered location tracking of such length
and scope, the court noted: "When it comes to privacy...the whole may
be more revealing than its parts."
The court continued: "It is one thing for a passerby to observe or
even to follow someone during a single journey as he goes to the
market or returns home from work. It is another thing entirely for
that stranger to pick up the scent again the next day and the day
after that, week in and week out, dogging his prey until he has
identified all the places, people, amusements, and chores that make up
that person's hitherto private routine."
"The court correctly recognized the important differences between
limited surveillance of public activities possible through visual
surveillance or traditional 'bumper beepers,' and the sort of
extended, invasive, pervasive, always-on tracking that GPS devices
allow," said EFF Civil Liberties Director Jennifer Granick. "This same
logic applies in cases of cell phone tracking, and we hope that this
decision will be followed by courts that are currently grappling with
the question of whether the government must obtain a warrant before
using your cell phone as a tracking device."
"GPS tracking enables the police to know when you visit your doctor,
your lawyer, your church, or your lover," said Arthur Spitzer, Legal
Director of the ACLU-NCA. "And if many people are tracked, GPS data
will show when and where they cross paths. Judicial supervision of
this powerful technology is essential if we are to preserve individual
liberty. Today's decision helps brings the Fourth Amendment into the
21st Century."
Attorneys Daniel Prywes and Kip Wainscott of Bryan Cave LLP also
volunteered their services to assist in preparing the EFF-ACLU brief.
For the full opinion:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/US_v_Jones/maynard_decision.pdf
For more information on the case, formerly known as U.S. v. Jones:
http://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-jones
Contacts:
Kevin Bankston
Senior Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
bank..._at_eff.org
Cindy Cohn
Legal Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
ci..._at_eff.org
Related Issues: Locational Privacy, Privacy
Related Cases: US v Jones
Received on Sat Mar 02 2024 - 00:57:16 CST