Law Enforcement Use of GPS, Article Review Example

This study seeks to review Smith, Alison article titled “Law Enforcement Use of Global Positioning (GPS) Devices to Monitor Motor Vehicles: Fourth Amendment Considerations.” Essentially, global positioning system is a high-tech invention that reveals information on the location, direction, and speed of a targeted subject. Its initial use was by the US military but slowly evolved into civilian applications by their either cell phones or vehicle tracking systems. Apart from private and military use of the GPS, state and federal governments have also been making appropriate use of the global positioning system in their domestic activities. For example, they make use of it by predicting natural disasters like hurricanes, seismic activities, tsunamis, deluges and in the tracking of stranded and lost motorists. This form of tracking helps in the effective and fast response to distress calls and emergency relief to victims (Smith 2).

From the author’s perspective, GPS is becoming an essential tool for locating, mapping, and orienting in general. Most GPS units can store location coordinates and track routes where a user of the road has already been. However, the global positioning system has brought some heated debates on its use especially when being used by law enforcement. Many law enforcement agencies in various states are using the GPS in monitoring and gathering evidence. They make use of it in tracking criminals and their activities, where they go and whom they interact with in their daily lives.

For example, ankle monitors are fixed to sex offenders in order to track their movements throughout the day and night. They also make use of cellular phones GPS capabilities by getting the service providers to track the locations of customers’ cellular phones. A good example in point of cellular tracking occurred when one phone was tracked and used to charge a suspect of an alleged murder scene and in another incident; a Mexican drug cartel was tracked (Weisburd and McEwen 19).

The major concern on the use of Global Positioning Systems by law enforcement is their use without obtaining a warrant permitting them to do so. This allows them to either attach the device or monitor a suspect after attaching the device. Some other arguments state that the search of individual’s property without a warranty may lead to the assumption of prying with an individual’s privacy, which is protected by the Fourth amendment to the United States Constitution (Samuels, 34). A warrant ensures that police have reason to believe that a criminal activity is about to take place or is taking place, thus avoiding intrusion into an individual’s freedom and private life. With all these some courts, however, do not see the use of a warrant and support that the police are saving the community and society alike from dangerous individuals and combating crime at the same time (Leipnik and Donald 37).

The law enforcement also makes use of the GPS units by tracking convicted criminals with the help of GPS enabled bracelets. These bracelets are placed on selected felons who are serving parole to monitor their movements. In this case, the global positioning system is used to verify that certain restraining orders are being obeyed. GPS units are also constantly in use by police in monitoring the movements of crime suspects. Such information acquired may be used to aid in a conviction or an investigation (Smith 4).

There are overlapping opinions on the Fourth Amendment banning unreasonable searches when law enforcement officials gather extensive information without intruding on someone’s vehicle or home. These acts of intrusion defy the rights of privacy even if one is a convicted felon. This raises the question whether GPS tracking ethical or unethical. The use of GPS tracking is infringing on basic freedoms that are associated with being human. If it can be proven that knowing the location of anyone at a given time or the ability to authenticate the truth of one’s whereabouts at a certain time is true or not, then the tracking by use of GPS is unethical.

Some arguments state that the use of GPS tracking on criminals is ethical. This is because a criminal’s right to privacy is deprived since act and the threat that they might commit another similar crime is grave. This is the case since by raping; stealing, engaging in fraud or murdering the criminal will have taken away the rights of others to sexual freedom, owning property and their right to life (Weisburd and McEwen 26).

The Fourth amendment protects the right of people to be protected from unfair searches and seizures and is divided into two clauses. The first clause does not permit the government to authorize any seizure or search that is unfair, the second clause denies the government any power to issue warrants unless it is supported by oath and has a justifiable cause. However, this amendment is not followed by most courts since at first it was seen as a protection of people’s property rights against unlawful physical trespasses but later changed to the protection of privacy rather than property (Samuels, 20).

In the various case rulings involving the Fourth Amendment, different judges have made different rulings because there are various aspects to be respected when concluding a judgment. For example, the United States v. Ciraolo case seeking to make a decision whether a suspect had a rational anticipation of confidentiality in his highly fenced residence is rather complicated. With the help of surveillance police, a helicopter without a warrant to check for any illegal substances in the residence, the court concluded that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy and any surveillance into his yard could not be considered as a search or infringement (Smith 5).

However, in the United States v. Karo the court held that the suspect had a realistic privacy expectation in his home. The lack of a warrant constituted an irrational search since the Drug Enforcement Administration agents installed an electronic beeper with the owner’s consent in a can of ether (Leipnik and Donald 12). Therefore, it is clear that the Fourth Amendment is not clearly spelt out and can be confusing for both the law enforcers and the courts. This also shows that there is no clear-cut outline to show when an individual’s right to privacy is infringed and when it is not, when an individual’s freedom is restricted (Weisburd and McEwen 44).

With respect to, the Fourth amendment dilemma, some states have decided to come up with statutory regulations that bar the improper use of GPS devices or explicitly requiring elimination of proof produced by devices of this nature if not obtained by the officers acting with the warrant. Many courts have reached differing conclusions and have thus arrived at the conclusion that law enforcement must first obtain a warrant before using global positioning systems and thus any monitoring of a vehicle is regarded as a search also requiring a warrant under the state’s constitution (Samuels, 29).

The state courts in Washington, New York, Delaware, Oregon and Massachusetts found out that the defendants have reasonable expectations of privacy that were infringed by the state’s action. The courts realized that the constitution allows more protection in the area of seizure and search. In contrast, state courts in Virginia and Nevada have found that global positioning systems do not raise any federal and state constitutional concerns. In the Foltz vs. Commonwealth, it was realized that the law enforcement’s use of GPS to monitor a car’s movement on a public street did not amount to a seizure or search under either the state or federal constitutions. Resultantly, the defendant became a suspect in a sequence of sexual harassments. The police attached a GPS device on the defendant’s vehicle, and upon its observation, it was seen that it was driven in and out of neighborhoods where crimes had taken place. In the court’s decision, it concluded that the defendant did not clearly have a personal expectation of privacy (Smith 7).

In resolving the court arguments of law enforcement’s not using search warrants, courts seek the appropriate balance of competing interests: protection of individual privacy versus enhancing law enforcement efficiency. The courts must confront the conflict of defendants raising the challenge of law enforcement’s warrantless use of GPS in criminal investigations and at the same time weigh the interests (Leipnik and Donald 18).

Those supporting the use of this device by police and other law enforcing agencies argue that it enhances accuracy of the police in crime eradication and dealing with it and preventing it from even occurring. It also helps in decreasing the possibility of risking the lives of the public, the police, or even the suspect from potential hazards in the case of a high-speed chase. They also argue that GPS functions in enhancing the surveillance officer’s eyes. Evidently, the naked eye does not go against the Fourth Amendment because an individual does not have a realistic expectation of privacy in an activity that is being done in public. In short, we realize that GPS tracking makes law enforcement’s job safer, more efficient and effective providing for a safer community and society (Smith 8).

The Fourth Amendment must be met no matter what the congress and state legislatures do. The legislation provides two benefits: explanation for bureaucratic distinctions between warrantless and presumptively unfair searches and additional protection where reinforcement is thought necessary. Law enforcement has utilized Global Positioning Systems in criminal investigations. Some of these are used in motor vehicle surveillance, which has raised concerns over the possible interference with privacy interests protected under the Fourth Amendment (Leipnik and Donald 25).

Other arguments include that of GPS tracking being comparable to observing with the naked eye and its advantages in preventing criminal activity are significant. Balancing the two opposing but convincing interests is not easy. Questions also arise as to whether the balancing should be done legislatively or judicially. In conclusion, the author shows that the Supreme Court has not clarified the Global Positioning Systems used by the law enforcement in relation with cars, which falls under the Fourth Amendment’s scope (Smith 9).

Work Cited

Leipnik, Mark, and Donald Patrick Albert. GIS In Law Enforcement: Implementation Issues and Case Studies. London: Taylor & Francis, 2003. Print.

Samuels, Richard. Encyclopedia of United States National Security. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2006. Print.

Weisburd, David, and McEwen, Tom. Crime Mapping & Crime Prevention. [Text-in-time Ed. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2010. Print.

Smith, Alison. Law Enforcement Use of Global Positioning (GPS) Devices to Monitor Motor Vehicles: Fourth Amendment Considerations. Congressional Research Service. 2011. Print