The capacity for a police department to surreptitiously affix a GPS (Global Positioning Satellite) unit under a suspect’s car and track the hapless individual for weeks at a time without his knowledge (and without a warrant) is not only raising the hackles of human rights activists—it’s also fostering disagreements amongst judges.
Either way, the Fourth Amendment needs an overhaul in this day of high-tech, advanced technology.
I suppose there were complaints about this same thing in a bygone era, when telephones were all the rage (land phones, not cell phones) and police figured out that if they tapped into someone’s phone line, they could recover secrets and private conversations (read: evidence) they would otherwise not have access to.
But they needed a warrant for that. And a warrant for searching someone’s premises. Approaching the court and seeking permission to invade the privacy of a suspect for the purpose of an investigation—assuming the police could provide adequate grounds for the request—added a welcome buffer into the mix.
But should the police require a warrant to put a GPS tracking device under someone’s car?
The courts are divided on the differences between long-term, and short-term surveillance.
Traditionally, the Fourth Amendment is held by the courts as not covering the trailing of a Read the rest of this entry »