Tag Archive | Supreme Court of the United States

Passing the buck on location tracking

by Keith Perine, Politico Pro, May 3, 2012

When it comes to police access to cellphone location data of suspects, Congress has left the courts holding the bag. The high-stakes privacy debate over law enforcement tracking citizens using geolocational data is one Congress — despite a few bills and a hearing on the horizon — isn’t likely to resolve anytime soon. Lawmakers have left it to the courts, while the Supreme Court seemed to toss it back to the Hill recently. …

For full text of the article, visit Passing the buck on location tracking – Keith Perine – POLITICO.com.

Advertisements

Cops’ Cellphone Tracking Can Be Even More Precise Than GPS

by Andy Greenberg, Forbes.com May 17, 2012

In the wake of a historic Supreme Court ruling that police can’t use GPS devices planted on a car to track suspects without a warrant, Congress is reconsidering the question of what kinds of location tracking constitute an invasion of privacy. And one privacy and computer security professor wants to remind them that the gadget we all carry in our pockets can track us more precisely than any device merely attached to our car–even without the use of GPS. On Thursday the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing to discuss a proposed bill to limit location tracking of electronic devices without a warrant, what it’s calling the Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance Act, or the GPS Act. …

via Reminder To Congress: Cops’ Cellphone Tracking Can Be Even More Precise Than GPS – Forbes.

Kevin Pomfret’s Top 10 Spatial Law and Policy Stories of 2011

Spatial Law and Policy: Top 10 Stories of 2011

by Kevin Pomfret, Spatial Law and Policy Blob, December 27, 2011

  • U.S. Supreme Court to address law enforcement’s use of tracking devices.
  • Impact of budget cuts becoming more pronounced
  • Privacy issues regarding geolocation becomes international story
  • Increased efforts to regulate Internet
  • Commercial use of drones becoming a reality
  • Lightsquared/GPS dispute
  • India revises its Remote Sensing Data Policy
  • Indonesia passes Geospatial Information Act
  • Big Data

For full text of Kevin’s article with a great discussion on each topic and useful links, visit Spatial Law and Policy: Spatial Law and Policy: Top 10 Stories of 2011.

GPS Surveillance: A Crossroads for the Fourth Amendment

by Daniel Solove, ACS, November 7, 2011

The Supreme Court has long held that there is no expectation of privacy in public for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Because the Fourth Amendment turns on the existence of a reasonable expectation of privacy, the Court’s logic means that the Fourth Amendment provides no protection to surveillance in public. In United States v. Jones … FBI agents installed a GPS tracking device on Jones’ car and monitored where he drove for a month without a warrant. …federal circuit courts have reached conflicting conclusions on GPS, and now the Supreme Court will resolve the conflict.

via GPS Surveillance: A Crossroads for the Fourth Amendment | ACS.

C-SPAN Radio’s Supreme Court Oral Argument of US v Knotts, Cited in GPS Tracking Case

The inscription Equal Justice Under Law as see...

Image via Wikipedia

C-SPAN Radio‘s Supreme Court Historic Oral Argument: “United States, Petitioner V. Knotts” (1983)

Friday, October 28, 2011

On C-SPAN Radio’ s historic Supreme Court Oral Argument this week: On November 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the oral argument in “United States v. Jones”—a case about police use of a GPS tracking device and the 4th amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. And this Saturday, on C-SPAN Radio’s historic Supreme Court oral argument, a case cited in “United States v. Jones.” From 1983: “United States, Petitioner v. Knotts, Respondent”.

Listen to the courtroom recording of the oral argument in the 1983 case “United States v. Knotts”–Saturday, October 29 at 6 pm ET on C-SPAN Radio: 90.1 FM in the Washington, DC area, online at Cspanradio.org and nationwide on XM Satellite Radio, channel 119. The audio and information in this program are courtesy of the Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law at: http://www.oyez.org/

via C-SPAN Radio’s Supreme Court Historic Oral Argument: “United States, Petitioner V. Knotts” (1983) | C-SPAN.

Read More…

CDT Summary of Supreme Court Case, Does GPS Tracking Require a Warrant?

West face of the United States Supreme Court b...

Image via Wikipedia

Center for Democracy and Technology, November 8, 2011

1) Supreme Court to Decide Whether GPS Tracking Requires Warrant

On November 8, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument in the case of United States v. Jones, which raises the question of whether the government can, without a warrant, install a Global Positioning System (“GPS”) tracking device on a person’s motor vehicle to track the vehicle’s movements. If the Court decides that the installation or use of a GPS device to track a person is a “search” or “seizure” under the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, then government agents would generally be required to obtain a warrant before using such a device. The Court’s decision could also shed some light on whether other forms of location tracking – such as monitoring the location of a mobile device such as a cellular telephone – trigger the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. …

For full text of this great summary, visit Supreme Court To Decide Whether GPS Tracking Requires Warrant | Center for Democracy & Technology.

Supreme Court Sees Shades of 1984 in Unchecked GPS Tracking

USSCB justices full2005

Image via Wikipedia

by David Kravets, Wired, November 8, 2011

WASHINGTON — A number of Supreme Court justices invoked the specter of Big Brother while hearing arguments Tuesday over whether the police may secretly attach GPS devices on Americans’ cars without getting a probable-cause warrant.While many justices said the concept was unsettling, the high court gave no clear indication on how it will rule in what is arguably one of the biggest Fourth Amendment cases in the computer age. … Justice Stephen Breyer told Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben that, “If you win this case, there is nothing to prevent the police or government from monitoring 24 hours a day every citizen of the United States.” …

For full text of the article, visit Wired.com.

%d bloggers like this: