Professor Spooner's Blog

As discussed in class and in previous posts here and here, technology presents new challenges to our constitutional rights all the time. The use of GPS tracking devices by law enforcement is a perfect example. It used to be that the police had to do long and boring stakeouts in order to get information on your comings and goings. Now technology makes that easy. By slapping on a GPS device to the back of your car, the police can monitor your car’s every move, which can be quite bad evidence in certain cases.

That is exactly what happened in U.S. v. Katzin. There had been a series of robberies of drug stores, all of which involved cutting the wires to the alarm system before the robbery. The Katzin brothers, who were all electricians, were suspects in the ongoing investigation because of their criminal histories and been seen lurking by some of the Rite Aids before the crimes.  Without obtaining a warrant, the police put a GPS tracking device on the back of the Katzin van. The GPS tracked the van’s movements to a Rite Aid store. When they discovered that the store had been burglarized, police pulled over Katzin’s van and discovered all three brothers inside as well as merchandise from the store inside the van, including pill bottles and Rite Aid storage bins. The brothers made a motion to suppress the evidence found in the van, arguing that a warrant was required to put the GPS device on their van. 

We know from the Jones case that the Supremes did rule that affixing a GPS device is a search. But the Court did not go farther and rule on whether it was a search that required probable cause, or a warrant, or could be conducted on the lesser standard of reasonable suspicion. The Katzin case put that question squarely before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals: the police relied on their reasonable suspicion (lurking around the Rite Aids, belong electricians) in order to conduct the search without a warrant. Was that constitutional?

According the the Third Circuit, it was a violation of the 4th Amendment to do a GPS search without a warrant. The Court found the GPS device to be intrusive enough that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that requires the protection of a warrant. The Court rejected the government’s argument that law enforcement could not gather the information required to establish probable cause without the GPS devices, saying that it was the “tail wagging the dog.” The opinion is long but thorough, and attached here. (By the way this is a very good paper topic.)

I am still not convinced that we can adequately distinguish this from watching someone in a stakeout, aside from the Supreme Court’s conclusion that affixing the device is a physical trespass. What do you think? Are we hampering law enforcement unfairly? Or protecting our rights against unreasonable search and seizure?

***Many thanks to Sayeed for bringing this new case to our attention. Although I don’t condone emailing during class, it is OK if it is to send me an important current event.***