Difference between revisions of "GPS Evidence and the Fourth Amendment"
From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
==GPS and the Fourth Amendment== | ==GPS and the Fourth Amendment== | ||
| − | The test for whether a given search or seizure violates the Fourth Amendment is whether the defendant "reasonable expectation of privacy" was violated.<ref>United States v. Katz, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)</ref>The defendant, through their own actions, may waive their right to protection from | + | The test for whether a given search or seizure violates the Fourth Amendment is whether the defendant's "reasonable expectation of privacy" was violated.<ref>United States v. Katz, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)</ref>The defendant, through their own actions, may waive their right to protection from warrantless searches: "What a person knowingly exposes to the public ... is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection" <ref> United States v. Katz, 389 U.S. at 351 (1967)</ref> |
Can a police officer walk up to your vehicle and place a GPS monitoring device on your car, tracking your every move for months on end? Until recently, the question was answered with an affirmative. The decisions of these lower courts was based on two U.S. Supreme Court cases: United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) and United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984). | Can a police officer walk up to your vehicle and place a GPS monitoring device on your car, tracking your every move for months on end? Until recently, the question was answered with an affirmative. The decisions of these lower courts was based on two U.S. Supreme Court cases: United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) and United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984). | ||
| − | In United States v. Knotts, government investigators placed a beeper inside a drum | + | In United States v. Knotts, government investigators placed a beeper inside a drum which allowed them to follow the drum to the defendant's home. The court concluded: |
<blockquote>A person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another. When [one of the defendant's accomplices] traveled over the public streets he voluntarily conveyed to anyone who wanted to look the fact that he was traveling over particular roads in a particular direction, the fact of whatever stops he made, and the fact of his final destination when he exited from public roads onto private property.</blockquote> | <blockquote>A person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another. When [one of the defendant's accomplices] traveled over the public streets he voluntarily conveyed to anyone who wanted to look the fact that he was traveling over particular roads in a particular direction, the fact of whatever stops he made, and the fact of his final destination when he exited from public roads onto private property.</blockquote> | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
The court noted that there was no evidence the drum was ever within the defendant's home, where he could have had a higher level of privacy expectation. | The court noted that there was no evidence the drum was ever within the defendant's home, where he could have had a higher level of privacy expectation. | ||
| − | In Karo, the Court was faced with a similar case. However, in | + | In Karo, the Court was faced with a similar case. However, in Karo the beeper was used to determine the exact location of the GPS unit within a storage facility. |
In 2009, the Wisconsin Court was faced with the question of whether the placement of a GPS monitoring device on the defendant's vehicle violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. The court's reasoning was based on Knotts and Karo: | In 2009, the Wisconsin Court was faced with the question of whether the placement of a GPS monitoring device on the defendant's vehicle violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. The court's reasoning was based on Knotts and Karo: | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
<blockquote>Knotts and Karo teach that, to the extent a tracking device reveals vehicle travel information visible to the general public, and thus obtainable by warrantless visual surveillance, the use of the device does not normally implicate Fourth Amendment protections. It follows that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred here simply because the police used a GPS device to obtain information about Sveum's car that was visible to the general public.<ref>State of Wisconsin v. Sveum, 2008AP658-CR (2008)</ref></blockquote> | <blockquote>Knotts and Karo teach that, to the extent a tracking device reveals vehicle travel information visible to the general public, and thus obtainable by warrantless visual surveillance, the use of the device does not normally implicate Fourth Amendment protections. It follows that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred here simply because the police used a GPS device to obtain information about Sveum's car that was visible to the general public.<ref>State of Wisconsin v. Sveum, 2008AP658-CR (2008)</ref></blockquote> | ||
| − | Until 2010, | + | Until 2010, all major U.S. Courts of Appeals who looked at the issue reached the same conclusion. <ref>United States v. Garcia, 474 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2007); United States v. Marquez, 605 F.3d 604 (8th Cir. 2010);United States v. Pineda-Moreno, 591 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2010)</ref> |
| − | However, in August 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia broke with precedent by concluding that the use of GPS evidence could | + | However, in August 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia broke with precedent by concluding that the use of GPS evidence could violate a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights.<ref>United States of American v. Maynard, No. 08-3030 (Aug. 6, 2010)</ref> |
| − | |||
In Maynard the police used a GPS device on the defendant's vehicle 24 hours a day for four weeks. The police did not have a warrant to use the GPS device. | In Maynard the police used a GPS device on the defendant's vehicle 24 hours a day for four weeks. The police did not have a warrant to use the GPS device. | ||
