Does tracking your phone's location violate your Fourth Amendment rights?
By Tim Stevens 
posted February 15th 2010 7:41PM
posted February 15th 2010 7:41PM
Sure, we like keeping track of where we've been, and about every day a new gadget comes along that allows us to better see the virtual breadcrumbs we've spread across the land. But, when it comes to letting the government snoop on our carb-loaded morsels, many of us are a little bit leery. Thus there is a growing debate about whether federal use of those breadcrumbs is legitimate, like the FBI identifying Texan bank robbers by co-locating phone calls made at various crime scenes. For its part the current administration indicates that you have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" when it comes to the location of your cellphone. This has members of the ACLU and EFF on-edge, but we're guessing that this doesn't concern any of you Latitude or Foursquare members in the slightest, yeah? [Thanks, Joshua]
I Hope so, Nobody needs to know where i am at 3:30 in the morning
@jrocka
Nobody needs to know where I am, ever!
Or why you or your friend stopped at taco bell at 2am then jack in the box at 2:30am.
@Patlex
Sounds like a good night to me tbh
@jrocka
great movie!!
@jrocka
You think you are innocent until they use GPS to track everyone that attended Michael Moore's latest movie or who is attending the latest Tea Party... you think you have nothing to track but when it comes to National Security the only threats are YOU... at least according to the patriot act and airport security.
@Mentat Amen brother. The (un)Patriot Act is evil and i really hope they let it expire.
@jrocka
you mean reading engadget?
@jrocka
I take is as you are not married
@jrocka and so my primary phone is an ancient Blackberry 8700 with no gps chip, no SD card to store private data, and no camera to take embarassing pictures with.
And my Blackberry 9700, which does have those features, sometimes rides in my pocket as my media player, and sometimes gets a SIM card when i need to tether or whatnot...
@jrocka
I just can't wait until local governments start issuing speeding tickets based on your GPS track. The computer will send you a letter stating you were going over the speed limit at a date and location. The last line will read "That will be $124 per violation, please."
If you're a suspected criminal, whatever.
@Brent1700
You know, that's pretty easy to say when you think of anyone who is a "suspected criminal" as being guilty. But the first time law enforcement tracks you or busts in your door because they have some circumstantial reason to suspect you, I'd bet you'd probably be singing a different tune.
That line, "innocent until proven guilty" is much more than a catchy slogan. It's a fundamental policy which separates us from countries like China and N. Korea.
Hell, I don't even let the cop search my car if he asks when I get pulled over. They always ask why, and my answer is the same: "No offense, officer, but I served as a U.S. Marine to defend this country and it's liberties - I can't simply give up those rights just because you requested it."
@MichaelF just curious... how many times have you been pulled over and asked to search your car? i mean, i agree with you on your whole point, I'm just wondering why you have to say it so many times... do you drive some crazy vehicle or something? is it a clown car?
@MichaelF That innocent *unless* proven guilty.
@ravissimo
Ha, no, and it's been years now. But in 2001 I bought a 1995 Mustang GT, then had Ford put a completely rebuilt 302 (5.0L) in it... I was 22 and liked to drive very fast down I-75 in Florida.
If your a suspected criminal, whatever.
@Brent1700
doublepost. srry
If they have a warrant, seems reasonable. If they don't, it's not. Why is this not simple. Worry more about: 1) laws that allow warrantless access and 2) people who have access anyway without a warrant.
@oGMo
Very good point. It's kind of like email. You don't want warrantless access, but you fully expect it to be used in court if there is a warrant.
@oGMo
Reading the article though, this is specifically talking about warrantless tracking of phone location.
@oGMo i would love to see a requirement added to the 4th amendment that anyone violating the 4th amendment be executed
and a sub-amendment requiring the person the warrant is against be notified before any action can be taken against said person
my privacy is FAR MORE IMPOTENT then anyones right to know
@angelwolf i've always considered privacy to be extremely impotent. we're just two peas in a pod, aren't we?
Sorry for the offtopic (&no offense) but... if you would only know how many of your articles start with the word "sure" or "okay".
Please take this into consideration. Thanks. :)
@silvestre
Where is the offensive part of your comment? It didn't have a question or even an insult, you just pointed out a fact.
@silvestre
of course I agree with you but...
They use subjective words like that in order to portray a sense of opinion. So people understand that it is the authors opinion and not fact or truth.
@Mentat That's one part of the truth; the other one is that those two words are not the only ones that can portray (better said: start) subjective opinions.
..you know, either that, or I'm being too meticulous.. :)
@silvestre None taken, and message received. We'll surely take that into consideration, okay?
@TimStevens
I see what you did there
lqtm
This is the 21st century. Privacy isn't even a question anymore.
Soon everything will be like it is in THX 1138. And we won't even notice the transition.
I think it should only be done is criminal cases or special cases like missing children. Other than that, where I am is between me and Google.
There's really little debate regarding the 4th amendment constitutional rights -- maybe some debate for congressional statutes or state laws. But the 4th amendment caselaw makes pretty clear that if you voluntarily share information with others, you take the risk of a "false friend." The police's use of tracking information like this isn't even considered a "search" under the 4th amendment, so the use of it isn't even required to be "reasonable." There is a shred of argument that the police can't use location tracking devices in private land where the police could not otherwise see whatever's being tracked from binoculars or satellites, but I don't think blackberry's and iPhones locate that specifically anyways.
Interesting thought, but supposing it does, I ask if the benefits of GPS tracking outweighs the disadvantages. It's not right IMO, but it hasn't hurt me I suppose.. Interesting indeed....
This should not even be a question! Of course it does!
The Constiution? What is that?!
/s
@Branhower
Seriously.
The way Americas have tolerated all manner of Constitution violating for "free cash" from DC, now they perk up over this? This is just par for the course.
I pity the day our forefathers a reincarnated...theyll prob drop the A-bomb on this whole country
@noob4u They'll probably realize what is wrong with us, then create a new society where everyone is equal and shares everything. I can see it now. Awesome.
@spade
What you are describing is Communism and is the direct opposite of what our founding fathers sought out to achieve.
The problem is that people are only equal in the point that we are all created in a the same basic image. What differs us is our personal drive. The founding fathers new this and their desire to have the freedom to achieve peoples individual dream through their own ambition is why they created a democratic country where anyone born here can be president rather then it being determined by your bloodline like it was in England.
I don't think the government should be tracking people, unless it is court-ordered or if it is publicly available through something like Latitude or Foursquare. If you use those services and make your location public, to everyone, then that's your choice. I don't think these services violate the fourth amendment as long as you opt into them.
love the "Enemy Of The State" reference
@petepete Definitely, when I saw it I was like oh hell yes.
Reminds me I need to watch it again.
@petepete
I literally just watched that today when I got it from Netflix...
Creepy Engadget, creepy
i feel like if you're not doing something illegal it shouldn't matter. but i'm all for its use in cases of crime, missing persons, and hell if i lose my phone and the government could find it for me i'd like that too.
@boli99
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Wisconsin V. Sveum. Look it up. 'nough said.
I had to do a debate over whether or not GPS tracking violated The fourth amendment rights.
@bmartini12
That case regarded STALKING. He illegal placed a tracking device on another person car. He was not a legal authority or deputized agent. He was not following anything related to Due Process. This case is 12 years old, and there have been newr cases with regard to police use of tracking devices, upheld by the supreme court (higher than Wisconsin), and not requiring a warrant. See United States v. Knotts and United States v. Karo.
Monitoring where you go, and come and go, can be done with human eyes, in public, or through the use of witnesses, transaction records, camera footage, and more, and therefore does not constitute a search. Positional GPS is a fine grained tracking device, accurate to within meters. However, Tower Location Services provided by cell companies, should a user CHOOSE to leave it enabled (or with a warrant, officers can force a provider to remotely enable a disabled location service on a PED), that the accuracy of a location service is only reliable to within several hundred meters. Following due process, and a written request to a provider (electronic), location information about a known person of interest, data an officer can already provide about that person clarifying an identity, and within a specific time window, is simple processes common to any law enforcement procedure for collecting information about a person's whereabouts during the act of a crime, or to establish alibi.
Naturally, Due Process is inherent to this idea. Access of this data WITHOUT due process could easily be illegal, especially if it involves learning the location or habits of an individual who is known to the officer or known to an acquaintance (checking in on a girlfriend for example). However, there is no real time monitoring of this data, nor can the data be obtained without providing a known identity, further, law enforcement is BILLED for this access, per record received, and that's going to have to be justified to a supervisor vs. an active case file. Officers can easily and quickly be imprisoned for accessing records like this, and they know it. The same system exists for pulling phone records (which also requires no warrant today), and it is equally not abused.
If you seek to be private, you can easily disable the tracking system in your cell phone. Then only with a warrant can you be located (unless they just attach a device to your car which requires no warrant unless they have to enter an areas of your property already covered by the need for a warrant to get to the car, called curtailment).
It's simple: if you commit a crime, your privacy is of no concern. In this case: you rob a bank, you forfeit your right to privacy.
@kevout could not agree more.
@boli99
First they took away my privacy, but I didn't care because I had nothing to hide. Then they took away habeas corpus, but I didn't care because I wasn't a criminal. Then they took away my right to assemble, but I didn't care because I didn't demonstrate. Then they took away my free speech, but I didn't care because I never spoke out. Then they decided to throw me in prison, and nobody dared speak out against them for me.