GPS Trackers, Warrantless Searches and the Supreme Court: Constitutional Balancing Act

Conservatism 101: D.I.Y. Political Education

The U.S. Supreme Court will be deciding whether police may attach a GPS tracker without a warrant to someone’s car and whether this constitutes a search. Da Tool Guy wrestles with the balancing act of catching criminals and government control in this week’s Conservatism 101.

CIVICS FOR THE MASSES

The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a case stemming from a 2005 arrest of a suspected drug dealer in Washington D.C. in which police attached a GPS tracker to the drug dealer’s car.

They had no warrant, but going around the the locations where he’d been they found drugs and money.

The man’s conviction was overturned on appeal based on the idea that the tracker amounted to a warrantless search.

The counter argument, which does have some weight, is that the tracker was simply another form of surveillance like following the man around.

That’s true, so far as it goes, however a GPS tracker is a bit different than a traditional tail. The courts have been pretty clear over the years that electronic surveillance is tantamount to a search and requires a warrant.

Granted in this case they were not gathering documents from his computer or recording his phone calls, but simply seeing where he went.

I do agree with critics, however, that unrestricted use of GPS tracking devices probably constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment protections from illegal search and seizure.

I also have more than a little concern about police simply being able to track whomever they wish without a warrant.

All of this points up the continuing difficulties new technology brings to the courts.

What exactly constitutes a search? How do we balance the needs of police with the rights of the public?

I have no good answers.

While I am a supporter of law enforcement in most circumstances — my father and great grandfather were both cops — I do believe we need to err on the side of protecting the rights of law abiding citizens.

Whether it is the First, Second, Fourth or any other amendment, it is in the nature of law enforcement and legislators to push the envelope.

In the case of lawmakers, a desire for control seems most often to be the case. With police the motives generally are far less sinister.

Cops see the worst of society on a daily basis. Most, no matter how many years “on the job,” have a deep-seated anger against those who break the law and victimize innocents.

That anger often leads to flirting around the edges of what’s permissible in order to bring criminals, if not to justice, at least to court.

Even with the best of intentions, however, all too often we see cases like this in which the rights of someone who is probably a scumbag of the first water are violated, and he goes free.

It’s unfortunate it usually takes a situation like this to clarify how new technology and new techniques fit in with the Constitution, but such is our system.

I’ll be curious to read the decision when it comes down. I’m interested to see how the court will balance the needs of the public with those of law enforcement. It is my hope they will remember that the law serves the people, not the other way around.

by DaToolGuy
images: dbkp file; hubpages

DaToolGuy is a small town journalist with big time dreams. He’s spent his entire adult life laboring in the obscurity he actually deserves. But he’ll take the opportunity to show off when it comes.

DaToolGuy writes regularly at View from Flyover Country.

Back to DBKP Front Page.