Justices ruling on GPS survelliance not as broad as some might have hoped

For those raised on reruns of Adam West’s batman and the Super-friends the idea of using a tracking bug on criminals’ vehicles seems perfectly acceptable.  That is, until you wonder just how any of that evidence would be admissible in court.   Is the monitoring of a private vehicle on city streets public in nature?

According to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, not precisely.  Justices decided that a warrant was still necessary to attach and monitor a tracking bug placed on the jeep of Antoine Jones, a nightclub co-owner suspected of trafficking cocaine. 

While the police had received a warrant to install the GPS device it was only good for 10 days and within the District of Columbia, while the device wasn’t placed until the 11^th day (and placed in Maryland) and was monitored for almost a month as he drove around the area.

Justices agreed that Jones’ rights were violated, but they differed on their reasons why.  The majority opinion did not address the larger legal issue of using searches like GPS or the monitoring of wireless communication devices like mobile phones and internet use, much to the chagrin of a minority opinion led by Justice Samuel Alito. 

Read the full article about GPS surveillance over at CNN.