When the government places a location monitor on you or your stuff, it could be violating the Fourth Amendment.<\/p>\n
If the government puts a GPS tracker on you, your car, or any of your personal effects, it counts as a searchand is therefore protected by the Fourth Amendment. <\/p>\n
The Supreme Court clarified and affirmed that law on Monday, when it ruled on Torrey Dale Grady v. North Carolina, before sending the case back to that states high court. The Courts short but unanimous opinion helps make sense of how the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, interacts with the expanding technological powers of the U.S. government. <\/p>\n
It doesnt matter what the context is, and it doesnt matter whether its a car or a person. Putting that tracking device on a car or a person is a search, said Jennifer Lynch, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF). <\/p>\n
In this case, that context was punishment. Grady was twice convicted as a sex offender. In 2013, North Carolina ordered that, as a recidivist, he had to wear a GPS monitor at all times so that his location could be monitored. He challenged the court, saying that the tracking device qualified as an unreasonable search. <\/p>\n
North Carolinas highest court at first ruled that the tracker was no search at all. Its that decision that the Supreme Court took aim at today, quoting the states rationale and snarking: <\/p>\n
The only theory we discern [] is that the States system of nonconsensual satellite-based monitoring does not entail a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. That theory is inconsistent with this Courts precedents. <\/p>\n
Then it lists a series of Supreme Court precedents. <\/p>\n
And there are a few, as the Court has considered the Fourth Amendment quite a bit recently. In 2012, it ruled that placing a GPS tracker on a suspects car, without a warrant, counted as an unreasonable search. The following year, it said that using drug-sniffing dogs around a suspects front porchwithout a warrant and without their consentwas also unreasonable, as it trespassed onto a persons property to gain information about them. <\/p>\n
Both of those cases involved suspects, but the ruling Monday made clear that it extends to those convicted of crimes, too. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Excerpt from: <\/p>\n
U.S. Supreme Court: GPS Trackers Are a Form of Search and Seizure<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" When the government places a location monitor on you or your stuff, it could be violating the Fourth Amendment. If the government puts a GPS tracker on you, your car, or any of your personal effects, it counts as a searchand is therefore protected by the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court clarified and affirmed that law on Monday, when it ruled on Torrey Dale Grady v. Continue reading