Case Law On Gps Tracking And Monitoring
1. United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) – U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: Law enforcement installed a GPS tracker on the vehicle of Antoine Jones without a valid warrant to monitor his movements for 28 days.
Issue: Does the warrantless use of a GPS tracking device on a vehicle violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Decision: The Supreme Court held yes, warrantless GPS tracking constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Reasoning: The Court emphasized that attaching the device to a vehicle and monitoring its movements was a physical intrusion into private property. Long-term monitoring without judicial oversight violated privacy rights.
Impact: This case established a foundational precedent that GPS surveillance is considered a search and generally requires a warrant.
2. Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) – U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: Law enforcement obtained 127 days of cell-site location information (CSLI) from Carpenter without a warrant to track his movements.
Issue: Does accessing historical cell phone location data without a warrant violate the Fourth Amendment?
Decision: The Court held that accessing historical CSLI is a search and generally requires a warrant.
Reasoning: Long-term GPS-like tracking via cell phones reveals intimate details of life, deserving privacy protection.
Impact: Although this case dealt with cell phone tracking rather than GPS devices directly, it reinforced privacy principles for digital and location monitoring.
3. United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) – U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: Law enforcement secretly placed a beeper (a type of early GPS tracking device) in a can of ether to monitor the defendant’s movements across state lines.
Issue: Did using the tracking device without a warrant violate the Fourth Amendment?
Decision: The Court ruled that the monitoring did not violate the Fourth Amendment until it entered a private home.
Reasoning: Tracking in public spaces is generally permissible, but intrusion into private spaces without a warrant remains unconstitutional.
Impact: Karo clarified that GPS tracking in public areas is less restricted, but privacy in homes is strictly protected.
4. People v. Weaver, 12 N.Y.3d 433 (2009) – New York Court of Appeals
Facts: Police placed a GPS tracker on a suspect’s car without a warrant.
Issue: Does warrantless GPS monitoring violate state constitutional protections?
Decision: The court ruled that warrantless tracking violated the New York State Constitution.
Reasoning: Unlike federal law, the New York Constitution provides stronger privacy protections. Long-term monitoring is considered intrusive, even in public spaces.
Impact: States can impose stricter standards on GPS tracking than federal law, emphasizing local privacy protections.
5. United States v. Pineda-Moreno, 591 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2010)
Facts: Law enforcement installed a GPS device on a suspect’s vehicle to track suspected drug trafficking.
Issue: Does long-term GPS surveillance constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment?
Decision: The Ninth Circuit ruled that prolonged GPS tracking (over 65 days) required a warrant.
Reasoning: Extended monitoring reveals patterns of private life, amounting to a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Impact: Established a precedent for the temporal limits of GPS surveillance—short-term tracking may be permissible, long-term generally requires judicial authorization.
6. United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
Facts: Police installed a GPS tracker on a vehicle suspected in multiple crimes over several weeks without a warrant.
Issue: Whether long-term GPS monitoring violates Fourth Amendment rights.
Decision: The court held that it does violate Fourth Amendment protections.
Reasoning: Continuous GPS monitoring over 28 days revealed private details of the suspect’s life. The intrusion was deemed unreasonable without a warrant.
Impact: Reinforced the principle that long-term GPS surveillance constitutes a constitutional search.
7. State v. Earls, 214 N.J. 564 (2013)
Facts: GPS monitoring was used on a parolee suspected of criminal activity.
Issue: Does GPS monitoring of parolees require a warrant?
Decision: The court held that GPS monitoring of parolees is generally permissible, given diminished privacy rights due to their status.
Reasoning: Parolees have reduced expectations of privacy. However, courts still emphasized judicial oversight and clear guidelines.
Impact: Demonstrates that GPS tracking may be easier to justify for certain categories of people (e.g., parolees), but general citizens require strong protections.
Key Takeaways from GPS Case Law
Warrant Requirement: Long-term GPS tracking generally requires a warrant (Jones, Pineda-Moreno, Maynard).
Public vs. Private Spaces: Tracking in public is less restricted, but entering homes or private property requires judicial approval (Karo, Jones).
State-Specific Privacy: States can impose stricter rules than federal law (Weaver, Earls).
Digital Analogues: Cell phone location tracking follows similar privacy protections (Carpenter).
Exceptions: Monitoring parolees or individuals with diminished privacy rights may allow GPS surveillance without a warrant.
RELATED Blog
0 comments