U.S. Supreme Court justices expressed considerable skepticism last week about law enforcement officials secretly attaching a GPS device — a global position system tracking tool — to a vehicle to shadow the movements of an individual suspected of violating of the law. They are correct to do so.
The case, heard last Tuesday, raises important questions about the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of “unreasonable searches.” At issue is the conviction of Antoine Jones, a Washington, D.C., nightclub owner who was convicted of distributing cocaine after authorities amassed evidence by using the GPS device to track his movements for a month. The Justice Department said that the secret and warrantless use of the device did not violate Jones’ right to privacy. Saying it is so does not make it so. The government had to make a case supporting that view. It did not.
Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben argued that the GPS device allowed law enforcement officials to follow Jones’ travels on public streets — a long-established right of law enforcement officials. The GPS, he added, was a tool similar to visual surveillance in which the police track and follow a suspect without need of a warrant. That’s true, but following and tracking a suspect by using a secretly installed device on a vehicle is a different matter.
The use of the GPS should fall into the same category as that of a wiretap. That is legal, but only if the government seeks and is given a warrant to do so. In the Jones’ case, that option was available to police officials. They chose not to use it. The failure, like it or not, violates one of the basic rights — privacy — guaranteed by the Constitution.
Jones’ attorney made his case succinctly. He argued that the use of the GPS device without a warrant was both a grave threat and an abuse of privacy right. If questions and statements made by the justices on Tuesday are any indication, his case, not the government’s, seemed to carry the day.