The United States Supreme Court in United States v. Anton Jones, decided on January 23, 2012, had the opportunity to consider the use of global-positioning systems (GPS) by law enforcement in the monitoring of criminal suspects. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that because the use of GPS is a search under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the use of such devices without a warrant is forbidden.
Anton Jones was suspected of drug trafficking by the FBI and the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department. A GPS device was placed on the undercarriage of his wife’s car by investigating officers when it was parked in a public parking lot. The GPS device was kept on the Jones vehicle for 28 days. Use of the GPS device gave law enforcement the ability to track Jones’ every move. He was subsequently arrested, convicted of multiple criminal charges, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the conviction on the grounds that the use of the GPS device violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches. The government appealed.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for a unanimous United States Supreme Court, affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Justice Scalia wrote that the use of the GPS tracking device on the undercarriage of the Jones vehicle was a “search” under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and that a warrant was required for its use. Evidence obtained from the GPS tracking device could not be used against Jones.
The use of GPS tracking devices has become a common investigatory tool for both law enforcement and private investigators. As it pertains to law enforcement, the Supreme Court’s ruling makes it clear that the use of GPS tracking devices can only be used when a warrant is obtained. The use of such devices without a warrant presents a risk that evidence will be excluded resulting in the dismissal of criminal charges against criminals who are obviously guilty. Because the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is based in large measure on the protection of privacy rights, the use of such devices could also expose law enforcement to damages claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including claims for punitive damages and attorney fees. Finally, although not specifically addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court, state law invasion of privacy claims may be permissible against non- state actors such as private investigators who employ GPS tracking devices in connection with private investigations.
Should you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact any of the lawyers from our Governmental Liability Practice group.
