
U.S. Supreme Court: GPS Trackers Are a Form of Search and Seizure - kposehn
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/03/supreme-court-if-youre-being-gps-tracked-youre-being-searched/389114/?single_page=true
======
bougiefever
I'm so pleased this is a unanimous decision. I hope the phone metadata issue
comes before the supreme court. If they are unanimous on this, then I would
guess they would rule that metadata on cell phone use is in effect a GPS
tracking method. It should fall under the same category.

~~~
rayiner
This and the earlier GPS case, Jones, aren't based on some broad idea that the
government can't track you without a warrant. They're based on the fact that
placing the GPS on your vehicle violates your property right. You don't have
any property right in phone metadata--it's the phone companies data collected
for its own purposes. This doesn't apply to Stingray either. In the GPS cases,
the government is putting a device on your car that broadcasts your position.
With a stingray, your cell phone is reaching out into the world and giving you
away.

~~~
diminoten
> You don't have any property right in phone metadata--it's the phone
> companies data collected for its own purposes.

I'd disagree with that. It's _my_ phone, and the metadata collected by the
phone company is done with my consent and under certain terms. If the terms
change, I get to change my consent if I want.

It'd be like the FBI sneaking a bug into the lamp I bought at Lowes.

Obviously we're both not lawyers, so there's probably a whole bunch of stuff
we're both missing (turns out law is hard).

~~~
nickff
> _Obviously we 're both not lawyers_

rayiner is in the Northwestern law department, so he is likely to be a lawyer.

~~~
tptacek
I think he just went to law school at NWU. :)

------
johnbellone
This is excellent news. I had begun to worry that the rapid advancement in
technology may take awhile to hold up to scrutiny. We still need a clear
concise decision in regards to software deployed on hardware for search
purposes.

~~~
dsp1234
Note that the opinion just says that it's a search within the fourth amendment
context. The court did not make any determination on whether it was a
_reasonable_ search and/or seizure since the state court never even considered
that aspect of the case.

So yes, it's good that it's considered a _search and /or seizure_, but the
case could still come back that it is reasonable, and thus legal.

~~~
rlpb
After reading your point I wondered whether the "reasonable" distinction had
any bearing on the requirement for a warrant. The warrant requirement is what
I'm most interested in here. I came across
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_exception](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_exception)
which seems particularly relevant. Apparently motor vehicles have a lower
expectation of privacy, so I wonder whether this means that a separate ruling
is needed on whether GPS trackers on motor vehicles need a warrant.

~~~
extra88
As the article states, the Supreme Court has already ruled that putting a GPS
tracker on a vehicle requires a warrant.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_\(2012\))

~~~
_delirium
Yes, this ruling is a pretty straightforward application of _United States v.
Jones_ , rather than much of a development in 4th-amendment law. The opinion
[1] is 4 1/2 pages long, and doesn't do much more than say exactly that: it
points out that the lower court's holding is plainly incompatible with _Jones_
, and sends it back down to be reheard accordingly.

[1]
[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-593_o7jq.pdf](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-593_o7jq.pdf)

------
phantom784
Now they need to say the same about those plate recognition systems. Different
technology, same effect.

~~~
owly
Indeed! Plate scanning, or face scanning, is a different matter as it targets
the entire population not convicted criminals.

~~~
sigzero
I don't think you are going to win that argument though. I agree with your
sentiment however.

------
forgotAgain
Hopefully this kind of thinking is carried over to fake cell phone towers used
to have individual's cell phones report in their location and usage.

------
dmitrygr
Good: the decision

Bad: the reasoning. They literally weaselled out of ruling on actual data and
the implications of collecting it, instead ruling on the fact that _TO_
collect the data, the tracker must be placed on your or your property, which
would be trespassing. This makes the ruling useless precedent-wise, and gives
the government a simple hurdle to jump over - find a way to attach tracker to
person/device that the SCOTUS would not find to be a trespass. This is similar
to the earlier case (which they ruled the same on for the same treason) UNITED
STATES v. JONES (
[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf)
)

I really wish they'd collect their balls, and actually rule on the real issue
at hand. They even mention in the USA v Jones case that they realize that they
will eventually have to. See page 32. They clearly understand what is at hand
and why it is important. Just do it already!

~~~
linkregister
I think it's safe to say the vast majority of HN readers (and myself) agree
with you, but historically, the SC tries to make the narrowest decision
possible.

When the SC makes overly broad decisions, they have been ignored by the
executive and legislative branches. The most famous such case is Dred Scott v
Sanford, where the executive and the legislature refused to enforce the broad
judgement that slavery be protected, and popular sovereignty be disregarded,
in the territories. [1]

Note that the court is also taking this gradual, narrow approach with regard
to gay and lesbian rights, starting with the Defense of Marriage Act and
continuing with the challenges of the constitutionality of marriage
restrictions in the states.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford)

------
afarrell
Remember folks, this doesn't prevent the government from tracking you; It just
means that if they try to use the evidence gained from tracking you in a court
of law, you can pay a lawyer to get that evidence suppressed _.

The CIA can still use tracking devices and so can the police in a state
without good public defenders.

_ If you aren't familiar with suppression of evidence, here is an intro to the
Exclusionary Rule:
[http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1585](http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1585)

~~~
rhino369
This isn't true. §1983 gives you civil remedies for violation of your rights,
including attorney's fees and punitive damages.

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I believe you could also seek an injunction to
force the government to stop.

------
suprgeek
I wonder if this will result in a blanket requirement that getting ANY GPS
data for an American Person would require a warrant.

The significance is that this pertains to a "GPS Tracer/Tracker" being
"attached". How about a modern smartphone? (As the article touches upon)

Is the mere presence of an already attached GPS system enough to trigger the
purview of this ruling? I suspect not but hopefully this will be put to the
test soon.

~~~
voxic11
No if you read the opinion they very specifically do not rule on whether
collecting the data is legal, they only ruled that in the case of GPS trackers
you must actually place the tracker on the item to be tracked which is
considered trespass of property which means it requires a warrant.

------
mooredinty
Say what you will about Roberts, he has done a lot to advance individual
freedoms in this court.

~~~
owly
True. People polarize SC judges like they do politicians. However, they are
often more nuanced in their decisions. You could strongly agree with some
rulings AND strongly disagree with others from the same justice.

------
owly
I wouldn't be surprised if a prosecutor used historic data of repeat sex
offenders to justify it as a reasonable search. Given the horrors of sex
crimes, particularly committed against children, I don't think this would be
hard to argue.

~~~
Lawtonfogle
Sex offenders have one of the lowest rates of reoffending.

~~~
strictnein
Link?

Also, I'm sure any crime that puts you in jail for longer periods of time have
lower rates of reoffending, since you're in jail. Murderers also likely have
low rates of reoffending.

~~~
Lawtonfogle
Reoffense tends to be measure a number of years once released (such as 5
years) and not over a lifetime (because in that case the length of a prison
sentence would matter).

Part of it has to do with why crimes are committed. Most sex offenders and
murders are not serial rapists/killers, and as such only offend in very
specific situations (such as killing a wife who was caught cheating). These
situations are likely to not happen again. Compare this to other crimes which
are more related to crimes of need. Joining a gang for the protection it
offers (even if it doesn't actually offer protection, the individuals think it
does) is not a situation that goes away. If anything during prison they become
closer to the gang as they group up within prison to survive. Someone who was
addicted to drugs is really likely to relapse into their addiction. Most
individuals selling drugs have even less legal opportunities to earn money
once they get out than before. And this isn't even getting into the class
aspect of things. It isn't something that is really captured in a single paper
but rather a larger topic.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> Reoffense tends to be measure a number of years once released (such as 5
> years) and not over a lifetime (because in that case the length of a prison
> sentence would matter).

It matters anyway. If you give someone a long prison sentence, their
personality will be different when they get out. Crime is a youth phenomenon.

~~~
Lawtonfogle
In which case we should be focusing on the age when they committed their
offense as well as (or maybe instead of) the crime they committed. And this is
assuming there is significant differences in the age of release per crime.

------
nzealand
They have only said GPS trackers are a form of search.

They haven't determined if GPS Trackers are an unreasonable form of search for
a recidivist sex offender.

------
lallysingh
So how does this play into "metadata" phone tracking by the NSA? And
Stingrays? AFAIK, those report positions.

~~~
afarrell
It doesn't affect the NSA because the NSA never brings criminal charges
against people, so they don't have to worry about a defense attorney getting
their evidence suppressed.

If you aren't familiar with suppression of evidence, here is an intro to the
Exclusionary Rule:
[http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1585](http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1585)

