Gps And Tracking Device Evidence
Overview
GPS (Global Positioning System) and other tracking devices have become vital tools in law enforcement and private investigations. These devices provide location data that can be crucial for establishing timelines, whereabouts, and movement patterns in criminal and civil cases.
However, the use of GPS tracking raises significant legal issues, especially regarding:
Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures (in the U.S.).
Privacy concerns.
Chain of custody and authenticity of data.
Admissibility of electronic evidence.
Courts weigh the probative value of GPS data against privacy rights, often requiring warrants or clear legal authority for placing tracking devices or obtaining data.
Detailed Case Law
1. United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)
Facts:
FBI agents placed a GPS tracking device on Antoine Jones’s vehicle without a valid warrant.
The device was used to monitor Jones’s movements for 28 days.
Legal Issue:
Does installing and monitoring a GPS device on a vehicle constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment?
Was the warrantless installation lawful?
Outcome:
The Supreme Court ruled that the installation and use of the GPS device was a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Because the government did not have a valid warrant, the evidence obtained was inadmissible.
The decision emphasized that physical intrusion to install the device was a key factor.
Significance:
Established that warrantless GPS tracking on vehicles violates the Fourth Amendment.
Set precedent requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant before using GPS devices on suspects’ property.
2. United States v. Katzin, 769 F.3d 163 (4th Cir. 2014)
Facts:
Police used GPS tracking on a suspect’s vehicle without a warrant.
The suspect argued this violated Fourth Amendment rights.
Legal Issue:
Can GPS tracking without a warrant be justified under any exception?
Outcome:
The Fourth Circuit reaffirmed the Jones decision.
The warrantless tracking was unlawful.
The GPS evidence was suppressed.
Significance:
Reinforced the necessity of a warrant.
Courts are consistent in treating GPS tracking as a search requiring probable cause and judicial authorization.
3. United States v. Pineda-Moreno, 617 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2010)
Facts:
Law enforcement placed a GPS tracking device on a suspect’s vehicle without a warrant.
The tracking lasted 65 days.
Legal Issue:
Was the use of the GPS device an unlawful search?
Outcome:
The Ninth Circuit ruled that long-term GPS monitoring constitutes a search.
The use of the GPS device without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.
Evidence obtained was suppressed.
Significance:
Highlights courts’ focus on duration of monitoring.
Even if placed without physical trespass, continuous monitoring invades privacy.
4. United States v. Garcia, 474 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2007)
Facts:
Police used a tracking device to monitor the movements of Garcia’s vehicle.
Device was placed without a warrant.
Legal Issue:
Was the use of a tracking device without a warrant legal?
Outcome:
Seventh Circuit ruled that the installation and monitoring constituted a search.
Evidence was suppressed due to the lack of a warrant.
Significance:
One of the early circuit court cases recognizing GPS tracking as a Fourth Amendment search.
Influenced later Supreme Court decisions.
5. United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
Facts:
Police placed a GPS device on Maynard’s car for 28 days without a warrant.
The data was used to track his movements.
Legal Issue:
Did the prolonged GPS surveillance violate the Fourth Amendment?
Outcome:
D.C. Circuit held that long-term GPS surveillance is a search.
Because no warrant was obtained, evidence was suppressed.
Significance:
Influential in shaping privacy concerns about long-term electronic tracking.
Emphasizes reasonable expectation of privacy over extended surveillance.
6. People v. Weaver, 12 N.Y.3d 433 (2009)
Facts:
New York police installed a GPS device on Weaver’s vehicle without a warrant.
Data was used to link Weaver to crimes.
Legal Issue:
Is GPS tracking without a warrant an unlawful search under the New York State Constitution?
Outcome:
The New York Court of Appeals ruled that warrantless GPS tracking violated the state constitution.
Evidence obtained was suppressed.
Significance:
One of the first state-level decisions protecting against warrantless GPS tracking.
Recognizes privacy rights beyond federal constitutional minimums.
Key Legal Principles
1. Fourth Amendment and GPS Tracking
Physical trespass: Installation of GPS devices on personal property constitutes a physical intrusion.
Reasonable expectation of privacy: Prolonged monitoring of a person’s location can infringe on privacy rights.
Warrants are required: Except in exigent circumstances, law enforcement must obtain a warrant based on probable cause.
2. Authenticity and Chain of Custody
Courts require GPS evidence to be verified.
Proper documentation of device installation, data extraction, and handling is essential to prevent tampering claims.
3. Admissibility
Courts often consider:
Whether the tracking was lawful.
Whether the data was collected in compliance with rules.
Whether the device’s accuracy and reliability are proven.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Court | Year | Key Holding |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Jones | U.S. Supreme Ct | 2012 | GPS tracking is a Fourth Amendment search; warrant required |
| United States v. Katzin | 4th Cir. | 2014 | Reinforced warrant requirement for GPS tracking |
| United States v. Pineda-Moreno | 9th Cir. | 2010 | Long-term GPS monitoring is a search; warrant required |
| United States v. Garcia | 7th Cir. | 2007 | GPS tracking without a warrant violates Fourth Amendment |
| United States v. Maynard | D.C. Cir. | 2010 | Extended GPS tracking without warrant suppressed |
| People v. Weaver | NY Court of Appeals | 2009 | State constitution prohibits warrantless GPS tracking |
Conclusion
GPS and tracking device evidence is a powerful investigative tool but is subject to strict constitutional limits, especially in the U.S. Courts emphasize:
The need for warrants before installation or data retrieval.
The privacy rights of individuals regarding prolonged electronic surveillance.
The importance of maintaining the integrity and authenticity of GPS data.
The case law is clear: improper use of GPS tracking devices can lead to suppression of evidence and significant legal challenges.
RELATED Blog
0 comments