Judges asked to rule on warrantless GPS tracking - abc27 WHTM

Judges asked to rule on warrantless GPS tracking - abc27 WHTM:

Posted: Mar 19, 2013 9:53 AM CDTUpdated: Mar 19, 2013 12:49 PM CDT

• INES >>

By KATHY MATHESON
Associated Press

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - A federal appeals court is being asked to decide if the government must obtain a warrant before placing a GPS tracker on a suspect's car.

The case before the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia involves three brothers suspected of robbing pharmacies. A GPS device led to their arrests in 2010.

Lawyers representing the trio told a three-judge panel Tuesday that warrantless tracking violates the Constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches.

But a federal prosecutor contends that authorities followed relevant legal precedents in attaching the tracker without a warrant. He says authorities had probable cause to suspect illegal activity.

A lower court previously ruled in favor of the brothers. The Justice Department appealed based on a recent Supreme Court ruling. It's unclear when the appeals court will rule.

'via Blog this'

4th Amendment Warrantless Search & Seizure Issues - Technology & Privacy - Privacy - United States

4th Amendment Warrantless Search & Seizure Issues - Technology & Privacy - Privacy - United States:

Almost all of usrely on technology to carry out our day-to-day activities.  We carry one, if not two devices such as a smart phone or tablet with us at all times.  Courts continue to struggle to figure out how our use of these devices fit within notions of privacy and the 4th Amendment.

Previously, we discussed the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Jones, a case addressing the use of GPS tracking devices to trace criminal suspects.  There, the Court held that GPS monitoring constitutes a search, although not one always requiring a warrant.  The Court suggested that a warrant is required where long-term monitoring occurs, but is not necessary where monitoring only takes place for one to two days.  Not surprisingly, this decision raised numerous questions regarding the interplay between technology and privacy. 

Since then, numerous lower courts have been faced with similar challenges.  

In a recent case in Colorado, law enforcement officers were able to locate the whereabouts of a bank robber through a GPS device that was buried in the cash he was accused of stealing.  After the robbery occurred, police activated the GPS device, which lead them to an intersection nearby.  There, police blockaded approximately twenty cars at gunpoint, searching each car until the missing money was discovered in the suspect's vehicle and the suspect was arrested.  

The suspect's attorney argued that the evidence seized from his client's vehicle was inadmissible because the roadblock was unconstitutional.  The District Court for the District of Colorado disagreed.  Judge William J. Martinez held that the evidence was, in fact, admissible.  Noting that he was troubled by the invasive tactics used by police, he determined that the detention of the other motorists in the intersection was justified, given that a potentially dangerous criminal was on the run. 

A similar decision was recently reached by the Sixth Circuit.  There, law enforcement agents, without a warrant, used GPS information acquired from a suspect's cell phone to track the suspect over a three-day trip in a motor home.  The agents then used this information to conduct a search of the motor home, where they found incriminating drug evidence.  The suspect was later convicted on drug charges.  The Sixth Circuit upheld the conviction, holding that there was no constitutional violation of the defendant's rights because he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the data obtained from his cell phone.  The court distinguished their decision from the Supreme Court's decision in Jones on the grounds that the search did not involve a physical trespass on the subject's private property.  Thus, a warrant was not necessary, regardless of the period of time of the monitoring.    

These cases demonstrate that courts are permitting law enforcement more latitude to use technology without the need for a search warrant.

'via Blog this'

Judge OKs Warrantless Cell-Site Data in Landmark Privacy Case | Threat Level | Wired.com

Judge OKs Warrantless Cell-Site Data in Landmark Privacy Case | Threat Level | Wired.com:

Federal prosecutors may introduce cell-site data obtained without a warrant in the retrial of a District of Columbia drug dealer who was the subject of one of the Supreme Court’s biggest electronic privacy decisions in decades.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the District of Columbia is a victory for prosecutors who are shifting their focus to warrantless cell-tower locational tracking of suspects in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling that law enforcement should acquire probable-cause warrants from judges to affix GPS devices to vehicles. (.pdf) Just after the high court’s January decision, the FBI pulled the plug on 3,000 GPS tracking devices.

read more at the link

 http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/12/warrantless-cell-site-data/

'via Blog this'