Gps Tracking Without Consent Prosecutions
1. United States v. Jones (2012 – Supreme Court, Federal)
Facts:
Antoine Jones was suspected of drug trafficking. FBI agents placed a GPS device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and tracked him for 28 days.
Prosecution:
Evidence collected via GPS tracking was used to convict Jones of drug conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court ruled that installing a GPS device on a vehicle and tracking it constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Evidence obtained without a warrant was inadmissible.
Significance:
Landmark case establishing that warrantless GPS tracking violates constitutional protections, setting the stage for future prosecutions.
2. United States v. Maynard (2010 – D.C. Circuit Court)
Facts:
Police installed a GPS tracking device on Maynard’s car without a proper warrant, suspecting him of marijuana distribution.
Prosecution:
Charged with drug trafficking. GPS data was key evidence in establishing movements linked to distribution activities.
Outcome:
Court ruled that long-term GPS monitoring constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Evidence obtained without a warrant was suppressed.
Significance:
Strengthened the precedent that extended GPS tracking violates privacy rights and affects admissibility in court.
3. People v. Hill (2013 – California)
Facts:
Police attached a GPS device to Hill’s car without consent to track suspected stolen goods trafficking.
Prosecution:
Charged with grand theft and possession of stolen property. Evidence included GPS logs and vehicle surveillance.
Outcome:
California courts ruled the GPS installation violated state constitutional privacy protections. Evidence was excluded, leading to case dismissal.
Significance:
Confirmed state-level protection against warrantless GPS tracking, even for suspected criminals.
4. United States v. Pineda-Moreno (2011 – Ninth Circuit)
Facts:
Police placed a GPS tracker on Pineda-Moreno’s truck without a warrant, suspecting drug trafficking. Tracking lasted 65 days.
Prosecution:
Charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute.
Outcome:
Ninth Circuit ruled the warrantless GPS tracking was unconstitutional. Evidence was suppressed.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that long-term surveillance via GPS without consent violates reasonable expectation of privacy.
5. Commonwealth v. Connolly (2014 – Massachusetts)
Facts:
Connolly’s ex-boyfriend placed a GPS device on her car without her knowledge to monitor her movements.
Prosecution:
Charged with stalking, harassment, and invasion of privacy under Massachusetts General Laws.
Outcome:
Convicted; sentenced to 18 months in jail, probation, and restraining orders.
Significance:
First state-level criminal prosecution for private GPS tracking without consent involving a non-law enforcement perpetrator.
6. State v. Garcia (2016 – Texas)
Facts:
Garcia installed a GPS tracking device on his partner’s vehicle to monitor her movements without her consent.
Prosecution:
Charged under Texas Penal Code § 16.06 (Unlawful Installation of Tracking Device). Evidence included recovered GPS device and phone logs showing tracking data.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 2 years in state prison, plus probation and restraining orders.
Significance:
Established that non-consensual GPS tracking in personal relationships is a prosecutable criminal offense.
7. United States v. Smart (2018 – Federal Court, Michigan)
Facts:
Smart, a private security contractor, attached GPS trackers to vehicles of business competitors to monitor movements for corporate espionage.
Prosecution:
Charged with interstate stalking and wire fraud under federal statutes; GPS data was key evidence.
Outcome:
Convicted, sentenced to 5 years in federal prison, restitution, and prohibition from technology-based surveillance.
Significance:
Demonstrated federal enforcement against GPS tracking used for economic or personal advantage without consent.
⚖️ Key Legal Takeaways
Primary Laws Used:
Fourth Amendment (Federal) – Protects against warrantless GPS surveillance.
State Criminal Statutes – e.g., Texas Penal Code § 16.06, Massachusetts stalking and invasion of privacy laws.
Federal Stalking and Wire Fraud Statutes – Applied when tracking crosses state lines or involves criminal activity.
Common Fact Patterns:
GPS installed by law enforcement without a warrant.
GPS installed by private individuals to track partners, victims, or competitors.
Long-term tracking to gather evidence or monitor movement patterns.
Typical Penalties:
Federal: Suppression of evidence, possibly criminal charges if conducted unlawfully.
State: Jail or prison 1–5 years, probation, restraining orders.
Lifetime or temporary injunctions against further tracking.
Patterns in Prosecution:
Law enforcement GPS tracking without a warrant often leads to evidence suppression rather than criminal liability.
Private GPS tracking without consent is increasingly prosecuted under state criminal laws.
Courts recognize that long-term GPS tracking constitutes a serious invasion of privacy.
RELATED Blog
0 comments