The Supreme Court has confirmed in a ruling that if the government places a GPS tracker on someone's person or their belongings, the act counts as a searchsomething that remains protected by the Fourth Amendment. <\/p>\n
As part of a case referred to as Grady v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court heard about how Torrey Dale Gradytwice-convicted as a sex offenderwas made to wear a GPS monitor at all times by North Carolina officials. In court, Grady challenged this, claiming it qualified as an unreasonable search. The Supreme Court agreed, explaining: <\/p>\n
The only theory we discern [] is that the State's system of nonconsensual satellite-based monitoring does not entail a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. That theory is inconsistent with this Court's precedents. <\/p>\n
It also listed some Supreme Court precedents to make its case, including a case where a tracker placed on a car without a warrant counted as unreasonable search. \"It doesn't matter what the context is, and it doesn't matter whether it's a car or a person,\" Jennifer Lynch, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Freedom Foundation, told The Atlantic. \"Putting that tracking device on a car or a person is a search.\" <\/p>\n
Still, the Fourth Amendment takes poor account of digital technology generally, and courts have only ruled on a small number of cases involving GPS data. At some point, as Lynch points out to The Atlantic, the justice system will need to establish how geo-location datanow prolific in phones, cars, watches and moreis governed and protected. In the meantime, though, North Carolina better rethink its policy on issuing GPS trackers to sex offenders. [The Atlantic, Washington Post] <\/p>\n
Image by Canned Muffins under Creative Commons license <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
View post:<\/p>\n
Supreme Court Rules Government GPS Trackers Can Break Fourth Amendment<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Supreme Court has confirmed in a ruling that if the government places a GPS tracker on someone's person or their belongings, the act counts as a searchsomething that remains protected by the Fourth Amendment. As part of a case referred to as Grady v Continue reading