The Supreme Court is set to rule on whether or not law enforcement officers need a warrant in order to track a suspect's vehicle with a GPS device. The case centers around Antoine Jones, whose vehicle was bugged for a month without his consent or a go-ahead from the justice department. The police have argued that such tracking shouldn't require a warrant because the location of Jones' vehicle on public streets is public knowledge. Advocates arguing against that stance say that the comprehensive surveillance constitutes an unjust invasion of privacy.

No one is disputing the fact that Jones was, in fact, selling cocaine when his vehicle was monitored.

Lower courts have sided with Jones' attorneys on the privacy issue in the past, though there is a precedent for allowing evidence obtained through warrantless GPS tracking to be upheld. The issue seems to be exactly how long law enforcement continues the tracking. Either way, law enforcement, prosecution and defense attorneys will all have a close eye on the outcome of the Jones case.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 31 Comments
      phoenix_AE
      • 3 Years Ago
      "But-but-but the Patriot Act said..." No, screw you, Officer Pudwhack. If you know the guy is dirty, GET A FREAKIN' WARRANT. Because, if law enforcement refuses to follow the rules, why should anyone else?
      Michael
      • 3 Years Ago
      The only people with less respect for the law and an individual's rights than criminals is the police.
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Michael
        [blocked]
      MONTEGOD7SS
      • 3 Years Ago
      I don't care if the guy was selling heroine to elementary school kids, this was Unconstitutional.
        jaazani
        • 3 Years Ago
        @MONTEGOD7SS
        hahahaha sounds like a spoof of some kind of mobster movie!
      rapier7
      • 3 Years Ago
      It should be unconstitutional period, regardless of length of time. Your car is your private property. I can't put a sign on my neighbor's yard without his consent. The police can't invade your private property without a judge's warrant. Period. The fact that this will go up to the Supreme Court and probably end up in another controversial 5-4 split makes a mockery of what law used to be.
      level4
      • 3 Years Ago
      Seriously, get a warrant. It's not that hard. Tell any judge you think the guy is slinging coke.
      Matt
      • 3 Years Ago
      Wow. This was the EXACT topic of my write-on competition to make law journal at school. Given case law and the constitution, it should be found UNCONSTITUTIONAL to track someone via GPS for more than 1 day. While it is true, when you travel your movements are public, under the reasonable person standard no one expects to be followed for more than such time and such tracking leads to more detailed information about a persons private life. Basically, if your going to track a coke dealer for 1 month, take the couple min and go get a judge to sign a warrant.
      Mazdarocks
      • 3 Years Ago
      Who is watching the watchers?
      jonnybimmer
      • 3 Years Ago
      If tracking did not require a warrant, then what's to stop them from tracking any car at anytime? The whole "they're on public streets so it's public knowledge" is a pretty lame excuse. They could use the same excuse for installing speed cameras and pretty much going all Big Brother on everyone. Just because someone can be seen out in public doesn't mean you should monitor them. I understand there's valid reasons for wanting to track some people, but that's what the warrant is for. I'm not against tracking down criminals such as this man when the proper steps are done, but "bugged for a month without ... a go-ahead from the justice department" just isn't right.
      Actionable Mango
      • 3 Years Ago
      My property and the place where I work are both private property. Unless the GPS somehow knows when it's on private property and turns itself off, their argument that it tracks movement on public roads is a lie.
      Chris
      • 3 Years Ago
      Seriously - don't we already know Scalia will write the majority opinion and this will deemed "ok" 5-4?
      maxdamage
      • 3 Years Ago
      zeus wants to know whats the cops doing inside his house.
      • 3 Years Ago
      [blocked]
    • Load More Comments