![\"Electronic](\"https:\/\/purplelawfirm.com\/law-and-you-chattanooga\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2011\/11\/Supreme_court_justice-300x300.png\" "\\"Supreme_court_justice\\"")
<\/a>The United States Supreme Court<\/strong> heard oral arguments on the US v.s. Jones<\/span> case last week and according a Washington Post Op-ed<\/a> the “Court has a chance to keep big brother at bay.” \u00a0\u00a0 The\u00a0 Supreme Court<\/strong> had recently granted the US Department of Justice’s petition<\/a> to review the decision of the US Court of Appeals which struck down the conviction<\/strong> of a man based in large part upon the use of GPS tracking without a warrant.<\/strong><\/p>\nThe ustices are tasked to review and to determine\u00a0 whether the warrantless use of a tracking<\/strong> device on petitioner\u2019s vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment<\/strong>.\u00a0 Also to be considered is whether the government violated the respondent\u2019s Fourth Amendment rights by installing the tracking device without a valid warrant<\/em> and without the defendant’s consent.<\/p>\n Some call this a case of big brother gone wild<\/strong>, but on the flip side the other side of the issue is the argument that law enforcement needs the technological advantage<\/strong> provided by GPS tracking in order to more effectively detect and investigate criminal behavior<\/strong>.\u00a0 The question here is whether or not the right to be free of unreasonable search and siezure<\/em> guaranteed by the US Constitution outweighs the need of society to be relatively free of crime.<\/p>\n This case represents the most important review of the issue of police authority<\/strong> in investigation with or without a warrant<\/strong> since the Katz<\/a> <\/span>decision in 1967 which dealt with the wiretapping of telephones.\u00a0 In this case Antoine Jones, a Washington, D.C., man who was trailed by the FBI via a Global Positioning System tracker. <\/em>He was convicted<\/strong> in 2008 for allegedly possessing and distributing more than 50 kilograms of cocaine.\u00a0 Does a police agency have the right to attach tracking devices to a person’s private property? Is a person entitled to a right of privacy<\/strong> in his or her movements, even on public street?\u00a0 How does a GPS tracker differ from visual surveillance? Why is a warrant needs to allow police to use investigative tools and technology?<\/p>\n The Court’s decision in this case could have a far reaching impact especially if the Court upholds the use of GPS tracking without a warrant<\/strong>. Would police then be able to attach a GPS tracker to other items of personal property which are in public view<\/strong>?\u00a0 For instance an article of clothing, like a coat, that you may hang on the back of a chair in a public building, or maybe a ladies purse in a shopping cart in a public mall or supermarket.\u00a0 There does need to be a limit of how and when the police use any investigative tool, especially if it invades the personal space and property rights of a citizen.<\/em><\/p>\n The purpose of a warrant is to provide judicial oversight<\/strong> to ensure that the police (executive branch) does not overreach the constitutional rights<\/strong> of individuals. <\/em>To obtain a warrant the police must present facts to a court of proper jurisdiction and request permission (a warrant) to use the desired investigative tool and show the court that probable cause exists to believe that the subject of the investigation is or will likely commit a criminal act.\u00a0 The police also have to show that reasonable cause exists to use the method(s) they are requesting- ie search, wiretap, etc.\u00a0 Of course police can do many things without a warrant, but warrants or usually required to invade privacy, or when a Fourth Amendment<\/strong> question is present.\u00a0 It is the judicial branch, not the executive branch that is charged with interpreting constitutional rights, and thus responsible for determining if certain rights should be altered or waived in order to protect society.<\/p>\n We have more and more crime plaguing our cities and streets everyday, and the criminal element has a full array of technology to assist in the criminal enterprise, radar detectors, so-called burn phones, satellite phones, and VOIP systems.\u00a0 Why should the police not be allowed to freely make use of new electronic gadgets to simplify the job of stomping out crime?<\/strong>\u00a0 Well, of course the police are allowed to use this technology, but are currently required to obtain a warrant from a court<\/strong>.\u00a0 In other words the police must show probable cause<\/strong> that the person to be GPS tracked is involved in a criminal venture.\u00a0 The Jones case, which is currently at bar, involved a drug dealer whose vehicle was parked on a public street, and the police placed a GPS tracker on the exterior of the vehicle which ultimately led to Jones’ arrest.\u00a0 The government argues that the exterior of the vehicle was fair game for placement of a tracking device, because it was in public view, and the interior was not invaded.\u00a0 But the vehicle was personal property owned by a US citizen<\/strong>, not government property.<\/p>\n The other question that arises: Is there really a difference between following a vehicle the old fashioned way and using GPS tracking?\u00a0 Law enforcement has almost always been permitted to conduct physical surveillance and follow a criminal suspect by vehicle, on foot, etc, all without a warrant. Why not electronically? \u00a0The reason that electronic or GPS tracking is more problematic<\/strong> than physical surveillance is that the placement of a tracking device invades the personal space or property<\/strong> of the alleged criminal suspect.\u00a0 Albeit the end result may be the same, the police can observe criminal behavior in either scenario.\u00a0 Allowing the government the ability to attach electronic tracking devices to a vehicle on a public street, will surely lead to more invasive techniques in the future – clothing, a cell phone sitting on a bar, a purse hanging on a chair back in a public place… Ultimately the issue involved is that a person is presumed to be a law abiding citizen<\/strong> until there is probable cause to believe otherwise.\u00a0 The fourth amendment<\/strong> was designed to prevent the long arm of the government from reaching into the personal lives<\/strong> of its citizens without the due process of law.\u00a0 Probable cause is the lowest burden of proof within the judicial system<\/em> – the police must show a factual basis that it is likely that criminal conduct has occurred or will occur. If the police have probable cause to believe that criminal conduct is transpiring then let them show that to the court.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Be sure to consult with a criminal attorney<\/a> if you believe that you are being investigated or about to be charged with a crime.\u00a0 <\/em>Continue to follow The Law and You for updates and insights into Should Police be able to track you electronically. Should Police Be Able to Track you Electronically? Will the Requirement to Obtain a warrant Survive in the Supreme Court The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the US v.s. Jones case last week and according a Washington Post Op-ed the “Court has a chance to keep big brother at bay.” \u00a0\u00a0 The\u00a0 Supreme Court had recently granted the US Department of Justice’s petition to review the decision of the US Court of Appeals which struck down the conviction of a man based in large part upon the use of GPS tracking without a warrant. The ustices are tasked to review and toRead More →<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_uag_custom_page_level_css":"","ghostkit_customizer_options":"","ghostkit_custom_css":"","ghostkit_custom_js_head":"","ghostkit_custom_js_foot":"","ghostkit_typography":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[7,23,24],"tags":[53,97,105,110,112,165,175,176,295,331],"yst_prominent_words":[2184,1874,2179,2181,1819,2170,2174,2183,2176,2178,2171,1703,2175,2173,2182,1500,1776,2177,2172,2180],"class_list":{"0":"entry","1":"post","2":"publish","3":"author-admin","4":"post-1144","6":"format-standard","7":"category-chattanooga-criminal-defense-attorneys","8":"category-general-legal-issues-chattanooga-tn","9":"category-law-firm","10":"post_tag-attorney-at-law","11":"post_tag-constitutional-rights","12":"post_tag-court","13":"post_tag-criminal-defense","14":"post_tag-criminal-law-tennessee","15":"post_tag-fourth-amendment","16":"post_tag-gps","17":"post_tag-gps-tracking","18":"post_tag-search-and-siezure","19":"post_tag-us-supreme-court"},"featured_image_src":null,"author_info":{"display_name":"Todd Couvillon","author_link":"https:\/\/purplelawfirm.com\/law-and-you-chattanooga\/author\/admin\/"},"uagb_featured_image_src":{"full":false,"thumbnail":false,"medium":false,"medium_large":false,"large":false,"1536x1536":false,"2048x2048":false,"hoot-small-preview":false,"hoot-large-preview":false,"hoot-medium-preview":false,"hoot-wide":false,"hoot-extra-wide":false,"hoot-boxcontent":false},"uagb_author_info":{"display_name":"Todd Couvillon","author_link":"https:\/\/purplelawfirm.com\/law-and-you-chattanooga\/author\/admin\/"},"uagb_comment_info":1,"uagb_excerpt":"Should Police Be Able to Track you Electronically? Will the Requirement to Obtain a warrant Survive in the Supreme Court The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the US v.s. Jones case last week and according a Washington Post Op-ed the “Court has a chance to keep big brother at bay.” \u00a0\u00a0 The\u00a0…","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/purplelawfirm.com\/law-and-you-chattanooga\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1144","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/purplelawfirm.com\/law-and-you-chattanooga\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/purplelawfirm.com\/law-and-you-chattanooga\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/purplelawfirm.com\/law-and-you-chattanooga\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/purplelawfirm.com\/law-and-you-chattanooga\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1144"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/purplelawfirm.com\/law-and-you-chattanooga\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1144\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/purplelawfirm.com\/law-and-you-chattanooga\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1144"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/purplelawfirm.com\/law-and-you-chattanooga\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1144"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/purplelawfirm.com\/law-and-you-chattanooga\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1144"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/purplelawfirm.com\/law-and-you-chattanooga\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=1144"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Most Important High Court Review of this issue Since Katz<\/em> in 1967<\/h3>\n
A Warrant Provides Judicial Oversight and Protects Constitutional Rights<\/h3>\n
Shouldn’t Law Enforcement Be Able to Use all Available Means to Detect and Prevent Crime
\n<\/em><\/h3>\nGPS Tracking Without a Warrant is Invasive of Personal Freedom<\/h3>\n
\n<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"