Supreme Court: unwarranted GPS trackers violate rights

The Supreme Court ruled last week that the use of unwarranted GPS trackers in police investigations is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The case in question was "United States v. Jones." Antoine Jones was accused of drug dealing, and investigators placed a GPS tracking device on his vehicle with an invalid warrant, according to the New York Times. He was initially found guilty, but the verdict was overturned because of the potential Fourth Amendment violation.

According to David Barnum, a political science professor at DePaul, this decision contradicts a previous Supreme Court ruling.

In the 1983 case "United States v. Knotts," the Court decided citizens did not have "a reasonable expectation of privacy" while driving a vehicle.

Many question how to handle privacy with the continuous advancement of technology, which has contributed to an increasing loss of privacy.

"I think no one is sure what to make of all the technological advances," Barnum said. "They tend to just happen."

Behind the unanimous verdict for "Jones" lies differing interpretations. Barnum said some judges believed citizens should have an expectation of privacy, contrary to the verdict in "Knotts." Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, on the other hand, were among others who focused on the issue in terms of property rights and disregarded the privacy debate.

Barnum said situations like this cause instability in the courtroom. "It stirred up a hornet's nest," he said.

But despite the inconsistencies in the judicial process, Barnum believes requiring police officers to obtain a warrant for these kinds of investigations is appropriate.

"The instances in which they decide to use this kind of surveillance will not be up to them anymore," he said.

Additionally, Barnum described the process of obtaining a warrant as a mere inconvenience for police officers.

"Getting a warrant is arguably a hassle, but its not necessarily difficult or risky," he added.

For some people, the Supreme Court ruling has a personal meaning. Khaled, a resident of Santa Clara, Calif., was with his friend Yasir Afifi last year when they found a GPS tracker on Yasir's vehicle.

According to Khaled, Yasir's father was a member of the Muslim Community Association and a very prominent religious figure.

Despite the ruling, however, Khaled is skeptical of what it means for the future.

"The ruling is irrelevant," he said. "Facebook gives our information to private corporations. They just shut down MegaUpload. They are clearly in control, and anything they give is done so with consideration."

"This ruling is a technicality that two lines of political jargon can go around," he added.

Nathan Weisman, a junior journalism and political science major, is more hopeful about the ruling and maintains that it is a step in the right direction. While the Supreme Court tends to focus on other issues more extensively, he claimed they make the effort to relate the law to today's age.

"I think when cases like this one are brought up, they do their best to modernize laws," he said. "It sets a precedent for the future to what constitutes personal privacy in a time when technology has made it easier than ever to gather information on people."