The Freeland File
Global Market Data
Tales from the Trail
Lucy P. Marcus
David Cay Johnston
The Great Debate
Macro & Markets
Personal Finance Video
RIM and BlackBerry on the edge under new CEO
Consumers ask for experimental drugs cover
Tracking microclimates could help feed the world
Tablet, e-reader ownership double over holidays
Weaker sun will not delay global warming
Korean research, a step toward Dr. Smartphone?
Huge pool of Arctic water could cool Europe: study
Great Debate: Keystone XL’s organizing principle
Video: "Smart E-book" turns page on technology
Slideshow: Wildfire in Nevada
Aggressive Romney takes new tack in Florida
Sun hurls strong geomagnetic storm toward Earth
23 Jan 2012
Gaddafi supporters seize control of Libyan town
23 Jan 2012
Putin warns ethnic tensions risk tearing Russia apart
23 Jan 2012
Toyota finds way to avoid using rare earth-media
23 Jan 2012
Subculture of Americans prepares for civilization’s collapse
Supreme Court rejects judge-drawn Texas election maps
Obama set to reject Keystone oil pipeline: sources
Angelina Jolie fascinated by "bizarre" Republican presidential race
Sun, Jan 22 2012
"Smart E-book" turns the page on reading technology
Sun, Jan 22 2012
A dangerous walk to school
Fri, Jan 20 2012
Supreme Court rules police need warrant for GPS tracking
Supreme Court throws out Texas election maps
Fri, Jan 20 2012
Israel's top court backs bar on Palestinian spouses
Thu, Jan 12 2012
Syrian rebel leader threatens to escalate attacks
Tue, Jan 3 2012
Analysis & Opinion
Chevron’s options to evade $18 billion judgment narrowing
Vodafone’s India tax victory may come with a twist
1 of 2. Security guards walk the steps of the Supreme Court in Washington, October 1, 2010.
Credit: Reuters/Larry Downing
By James Vicini
Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:41pm EST
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.
SUSPECTED DRUG TRAFFICKER
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 http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Back to top
New York Legal
Support & Contact
Advertise With Us
Connect with Reuters
Our Flagship financial information platform incorporating Reuters Insider
An ultra-low latency infrastructure for electronic trading and data distribution
A connected approach to governance, risk and compliance
Our next generation legal research platform
Our global tax workstation
About Thomson Reuters
Thomson Reuters is the world's largest international multimedia news agency, providing investing news, world news, business news, technology news, headline news, small business news, news alerts, personal finance, stock market, and mutual funds information available on Reuters.com, video, mobile, and interactive television platforms. Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.
NYSE and AMEX quotes delayed by at least 20 minutes. Nasdaq delayed by at least 15 minutes. For a complete list of exchanges and delays, please click here.