Court rules that sly GPS tracking isn't unlawful

It's one thing to offload (illegally) a dozen or so GPS units from a storage facility and beg the police to nab you by leaving them turned on, but for the boys in blue to slide a tracking device into your ride to keep dibs on your doings, well that's another matter entirely. Earlier this month, the Seventh Circuit of the US Court of Appeals "ruled against a defendant who claimed that the surreptitious placement of a GPS tracking device amounted to an unconstitutional search," essentially giving the coppers the green light to add a GPS module to a suspicious ride sans a warrant. While we're sure the privacy advocates out there are screaming bloody murder, the district judge found that they had had a "reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity," and it seems that a well-placed hunch is all they need for lawful placement. Interestingly, the government argues that no warrant was needed since "there was no search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment," but did add that "wholesale surveillance of the entire population" was to be viewed differently. So while this may come as a shock to some folks out there, it's not like your vehicles have been entirely devoid of data capturing devices up until now anyway, so here's fair warning to be on your best behavior when rolling about.

[Victor Sellarole @ Feb 4th 2007 7:09PM]

yah, I actually agree, they should be able to do that. if they have the opportunity, and it could mean the difference between losing a criminal or catching him, who's going to have time to goget a warrant??? by the way, is there a way to change my engadget password?

[Brian @ Feb 4th 2007 8:10PM]

Probable cause? "I didn't like his long hair... er, I mean, he looked suspicious."

Big Brother is watching.

[Eric @ Feb 4th 2007 8:16PM]

What is this? Has the 7th Circuit court of appeals decided, suddenly, that they're now the 9th circuit? I would expect to see this coming out of the 9th, not the 7th. Expect the supreme court to overturn this rubbish.

[kompressor @ Feb 5th 2007 2:10AM]

Jack Bauer doesn't care about legality

[Egfrow @ Feb 4th 2007 8:23PM]

Personal property is just that. A car is not the property of the state or belongs to the public. It's a personal appliance which was paid for and owned by your hard work. Taking a tracking device and physically touching and sticking it onto your property is the same as attaching a microphone or video camera inside your refrigerator. If this car parks inside my property and a state owned device is on it. They have violated my 4th amendment rights and my personal property rights. The Car OEMS are doing the same with EDR devices.

[kerunt @ Feb 4th 2007 8:35PM]

So, how long until someone releases a $20 device that will start beeping whenever your car gives off a GPS signal? Sign me up for a dozen of these...

[GPS @ Feb 4th 2007 11:16PM]

A few months ago I was looking to buy a GPS jammer as I suspected my vehicle had a tracking device from a stalker (not the police), but these things seems to be nearly impossible to purchase as it appears they are illegal to buy. Which is stupid. I should have the right not to have some idiot who places a box the size of a gum pack and paid a few hundred bucks to stop from being tracked. No?

[Foof @ Feb 4th 2007 8:43PM]

It's not at all like sticking a microphone inside your fridge (though it can seem that way). For better or for worse, there is a line of SCt cases that essentially say electronic tracking of vehicles on public roads or in public facilities is like tailing the car by plain sight - there is no expectation of privacy when driving in public, and it does not trigger the 4th amendment. Once that car goes into a private home (garage) or leaves in a way that is not practically trackable by public means other than the GPS, then it may be a different story.

Check out US v. Knotts and US v. Karo for more information on what the police can and cannot do vis a vis electronic tracking.

[PEZ @ Feb 4th 2007 9:21PM]

Time for the Universal Jamming Device. Blocks GSM, GPS, WiFi, BT, RFiD, and a slew of other things :)

All for the cost of 3 pizza's a week for a month. Uuuh, $99.99?

[Brian @ Feb 4th 2007 10:24PM]

What's next? Will they soon be able legally to planet a tracking device on a person? Assuming there's no risk to the person, what's to prevent them from putting one IN a person say, via food or drink, or some kind of high-velocity dart? You know that's what they do to herd animals to keep tabs on them...

[Mark @ Feb 4th 2007 10:16PM]

Big Brother is here folks. Bend down and take it all in.. and guess what.. there's no lube...

[JV @ Feb 4th 2007 10:24PM]

Well...don't start nothing, won't be nothing. If you've got nothing to worry about, don't worry about nothing.

[John Bunka @ Feb 4th 2007 10:50PM]

is today's theme GPS?

[Andir3.0 @ Feb 5th 2007 12:17AM]

so, what's to stop someone from pulling off the device and sticking it on a dump truck?

[Andy @ Feb 5th 2007 12:47AM]

The fact that it is probably well hidden.....

[Jeff @ Feb 5th 2007 12:45AM]

They'd probably arrest you for impeding an investigation :D

[Andir3.0 @ Feb 5th 2007 1:38AM]

If there's something on my car, I'll know about it :P then again, most people don't uven slide under thier cars regularly, so I guess most people won't notice it.

[ThisGuy @ Feb 5th 2007 2:20AM]

Wow, and I don't mean the MMORPG. I mean, just... wow.

A car is private property. Even when it's "on the road." I would consider the planting of a foriegn device of any kind to be illegal trespass, by another citizen, or an office of the law.. who are all citizens as well.. for now.

Obviously, motor homes are recognized as being protected under the law when it comes to illegal trespass. Granted they're designed to be domiciles of a sort. That doesn't change the fact they're vehicles. Private property should extend beyond the "land" you live on. It should include cars, boats, and anything else a person owns. It should include a backpack, purse, or even the interior of an open shopping bag, or device. Do you really want some ***hat slipping a wireless device into your laptop at Starbucks (through the air vents), or into your radio at the beach, then have it be considered "legal" because it was outside your home? Bull. No one should have the right without a court order, to touch your personal belongings, regardless of what they are, without your permission.

Granted, there are exceptions. Like for you idiots that keep parking in front of fire hydrants.

[theinvisiblemooseman @ Feb 5th 2007 3:41AM]

1984...

[xabra @ Feb 5th 2007 6:58AM]

so to ask the obvious ... could I add a GPS tracker to a police car and post it on website (coptrack? anyone) I'm sure I can get rich ..

-xabra

[Andir3.0 @ Feb 5th 2007 7:19AM]

No, you should already know, it's illegal to keep cops in check.

[Wordguy @ Feb 5th 2007 4:30AM]

You can keep "tabs" on someone, not "dibs".
You can call "dibs" on something ... like reporting a story before your coworker.

[Tom @ Feb 5th 2007 7:55PM]

This is only okay if the police are James Bond. Since they're not, it's not okay.

[Mike Potter @ Feb 5th 2007 10:51AM]

This judge is just wrong in his judgement. He's ignored the spirit of the law. He appears to have given in to the rather stupid arguement that you don't have to worry if your innocent. For one thing it ignores the fact that as in any human endeavor the police have their fair share of people who aren't fit for the job and because of that all officers need monitoring in their decisions. It ignores the fact that it is so easy for the police to follow the correct procedure that their is no reason for this kind of ruling. Finally in my opinion (based on the little information I've bothered to check on) this judge needs to be checked to see if he has the proper understanding of the law as a whole.

[Richard Koman @ Feb 9th 2007 3:21PM]

Hardly a "well-placed hunch." Quoting from the decision:

"Shortly after his release from prison, a person who was a known user of meth reported to police that the defendant had brought meth to her and her husband, consumed it with them, and told them he wanted to start manufacturing meth again. Another person told the police that the defendant had bragged that he could manufacture meth in front of a police station without being caught. A store's security [*2] video system recorded the defendant buying ingredients used in making the drug. From someone else the police learned that the defendant was driving a borrowed Ford Tempo. They went looking for it and found it parked on a public street near where the defendant was staying. The police placed a GPS (global positioning system) "memory tracking unit" underneath the rear bumper of the Ford."

So they clearly had "reasonable suspicion." They probably also had "probable cause." If so they could have obtained a warrant.

The Court holds they didn't need a warrant because this wasn't a search. A cop can follow you when you're driving around - that's not a search. Earlier decisions have also held they can augment the "following" by placing a beeper in a container of chemicals defendant bought. They can even happen to be flying over your house and happen to see the pot plants you're growing.

Here the court says the GPS unit is just telling the cops where the car is being driven, which is really just augmenting what the cops would know if they followed him around themselves. Thus not a search.

I think it is a search, although it may be a reasonable one. At least reasonable suspicion should be required. To hold that it's not a search means the cops could randomly attach a gps unit to my car or yours, without any suspicion at all.

It would have been nice if the cops had gotten a warrant but assuming there wasn't time, the standard for reasonable should be articulable reasonable suspicion.

[Concerned @ Mar 3rd 2007 5:17PM]

so what is the easiest and most cost effective means of detecting one of these on your car?