GPS Enhanced Surveillance is Constitutional

The United States government’s recent use of secretly installed GPS units to track the movements of Antoine Jones represents a sticky problem. The Fourth Amendment guarantees all citizens “[t]he right … to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” It seems clear that searches and seizures are always illegal unless a warrant is obtained, and that a warrant may only be issued with probable cause with the affirmation of a judge, and a specific declaration of the place, persons, and things to be searched and seized.

It seems that two different spheres need to be defined. Specifically with regard to tracking a vehicle while it is on public property, the government’s right to do that should not be questioned. This would be no different than a police team participating in a stake-out and watching/ following an individual as long as he/ she remained on public property. It does not seem irrational that the government has the right to do this without a warrant, and the extension of that right to using GPS tracking is reasonable.

That leaves only the right of the government to track vehicles once they enter private property. This would also appear to be constitutional IF a warrant were obtained. One of the issues at stake is that this would allow the government 24/ 7 surveillance. However, if the same stipulation that the amount of time the government may spend during this search and seizure must also be explicitly declared in the warrant, it is completely within the right of the federal police force to track a vehicle on private property for an indefinite period of time. Of course, it is the responsibility of those issuing the warrants to exercise restraint in allowing the police too much latitude in this arena. However, we allow them the same discretion of where, what and who is to be searched/ seized. It does not seem out of the question to simply include “when” to this discretion.


People also view

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *