Blog
Supreme Court Rules GPS Tracking is a Search Requiring Warrant
Blog
February 21, 2012
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that the government's use of a GPS tracking device on a vehicle constitutes a search, thus requiring a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. In the case, the government had obtained a search warrant to install a GPS tracking device on a drug suspect's vehicle. The warrant authorized installation within ten days of the warrant in Washington D.C., but the agents installed the device on the 11th day, and in Maryland. The vehicle's movements were tracked for 28 days. Using the information gathered, the government secured an indictment of the defendant and others on drug trafficking conspiracy charges. The district court suppressed the GPS data gathered while the car was parked in the defendant's garage, but not information gathered while the car was on public streets. In reaching its decision, the district court found that while on public streets, the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy and thus the government did not need a valid warrant. The defendant was convicted, but the court of appeals reversed, concluding that the admission of the evidence obtained by use of the GPS on the public streets was an unauthorized search under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeal's decision, finding that use of a GPS tracking device – even on public streets – constituted a search necessitating a valid warrant.
TIP: This case was much watched and commented on for its interpretation that GPS tracking constitutes a "search." It is unclear whether this decision will have an impact outside of the narrow area of government searches. It does suggest, though, that the traditional interpretation of what is "private" may be expanding. Companies that engage in tracking and monitoring (e.g., as part of mobile advertising strategies) should keep this potential shift in mind.
This entry has been created for information and planning purposes. It is not intended to be, nor should it be substituted for, legal advice, which turns on specific facts.