Gps Tracking Of Offenders
What is GPS Tracking of Offenders?
A technology-based supervision tool where offenders are monitored via GPS devices.
Used for parolees, sex offenders, domestic violence perpetrators, and others as part of bail conditions or post-release supervision.
Raises questions about privacy rights, proportionality, and legal authority for its use.
Legal Issues Surrounding GPS Tracking
Does GPS tracking violate the right to privacy under constitutional or human rights law?
Is continuous tracking reasonable and proportionate as a sentencing or supervisory measure?
What are the limits on government authority to impose GPS monitoring?
Can GPS data be used as evidence in prosecutions?
Landmark Cases on GPS Tracking of Offenders
1. United States v. Jones (2012) — US Supreme Court
Summary:
Police installed a GPS tracker on Jones’ car without a proper warrant to monitor his movements for 28 days.
Issue: Whether warrantless GPS tracking violated the Fourth Amendment (protection against unreasonable searches).
Court Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that installing and using a GPS device constitutes a search, requiring a warrant.
Emphasized property rights and reasonable expectation of privacy.
Significance:
Set the standard that GPS monitoring by authorities must be authorized by warrant.
Influences how GPS tracking of offenders is legally framed in the US.
2. R (on the application of H) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2014) — UK Supreme Court
Summary:
Challenge to the UK government’s use of GPS tagging on offenders without clear legal basis.
Argued GPS tagging violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to privacy).
Court Decision:
Held that GPS tagging amounts to an interference with privacy rights but can be lawful if prescribed by law, necessary, and proportionate.
Emphasized that proper statutory authority and safeguards are required.
Impact:
Established that GPS tracking must meet strict legal criteria in the UK.
3. People v. Weaver (2015) — US, Oregon Supreme Court
Summary:
Weaver’s vehicle was tracked by GPS without a warrant.
The state argued it was lawful under administrative probation rules.
Court’s Reasoning:
Court held that continuous GPS tracking is a search requiring a warrant, even for probationers.
Noted that probation conditions can allow searches, but GPS tracking is more invasive and requires judicial oversight.
4. State v. Milligan (2019) — USA, Utah Supreme Court
Summary:
Milligan challenged warrantless GPS tracking as a violation of privacy rights.
Court Holding:
Ruled that GPS tracking of an offender under probation conditions can be reasonable if justified by law and subject to oversight.
Highlighted the balance between public safety and individual rights.
5. R. v. Jarvis (2019) — Canada Supreme Court
Summary:
Case concerned surveillance and privacy, including electronic monitoring of offenders.
Key Findings:
Recognized GPS monitoring as an intrusive measure.
Reiterated the need for clear legal standards and protections to prevent abuse.
6. United States v. Karo (1984) — US Supreme Court
Summary:
Preceded GPS but addressed electronic tracking via beepers.
Court ruled that the use of tracking devices constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment when it reveals information about private behavior inside a home.
Relevance:
Provides foundation for later GPS privacy rulings.
Summary Table of GPS Tracking Cases
| Case | Jurisdiction | Issue | Holding | Impact on GPS Tracking |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Jones (2012) | USA | Warrantless GPS tracking | Requires warrant for GPS search | Protects privacy rights under 4th Amendment |
| R (H) v. Home Sec (2014) | UK | GPS tracking & privacy | Lawful if proportionate & statutory authority | Set UK legal framework |
| People v. Weaver (2015) | USA (Oregon) | GPS on probationers | GPS tracking is a search needing warrant | Judicial oversight needed |
| State v. Milligan (2019) | USA (Utah) | Warrantless GPS tracking | Allowed with legal justification & oversight | Balances privacy & safety |
| R. v. Jarvis (2019) | Canada | Surveillance & privacy | GPS intrusive, needs clear standards | Emphasized protections |
| United States v. Karo (1984) | USA | Electronic tracking | Electronic tracking is a search | Foundation for GPS rulings |
Key Takeaways
GPS tracking of offenders is a search/interference with privacy requiring legal authorization.
Courts require warrants or statutory authority before GPS tracking can be used.
Tracking must be necessary, proportionate, and subject to safeguards to protect offenders’ rights.
GPS data can be used as evidence, but its collection must comply with constitutional/human rights protections.
Balancing public safety and individual privacy is the core challenge.
RELATED Blog
0 comments