Global Positioning Systems and Civil Liberties: Presentation by Jonah Perlin For FRS 142: Where’s Waldo Princeton University Professor Groth April 2, 2004 Global Positioning Systems and Civil Liberties


Presentation Outline: Presentation Outline GPS and Our Rights: How are GPS and Civil Liberties Uniquely Connected The Science of GPS: A Short Introduction into how GPS is used in the law Case Study The Civil Rights Case of Washington State v. Jackson Opposing Viewpoints The Civil Liberties and Moral Arguments Used by Both Sides Looking Ahead The future of GPS and Civil Rights


GPS and Our Rights:What’s the Big Deal?: GPS and Our Rights: What’s the Big Deal? Do We Have a Right to Free Motion? Warrantless Tracking Tracking Every Move There is no explicit right to privacy so “free-motion” becomes an issue of Constitutional interpretation Public Action can be watched all the time Private Action Requires a Warrant New Technology does not inherently equal “private action” =?


GPS and Our Rights:The 5 W’s: GPS and Our Rights: The 5 W’s Who? Convicted Criminals and/or suspects Tracking could occur on many levels local law enforcement to the FBI What? The Police use GPS technology to keep constant track of an individual. They can set electronic fences They can match records and crime data after the fact They can allow others in the community to know when someone is around GPS can be placed on the individual or on an object such as a car


GPS and Our Rights:The 5 W’s (cont’d): GPS and Our Rights: The 5 W’s (cont’d) Where? Tracking takes place in the unique “public domain” Essential to Search-and-Seizure issue Individuals can be tracked almost anywhere, although difficulty occurs in areas in and around lots of buildings (dense cities, malls, etc) Tracking occurs all over the country. More than 75 local law offices tracking more than 1,500 criminals nationwide (Global Positioning and Navigation News)


GPS and Our Rights:The 5 W’s (cont’d): GPS and Our Rights: The 5 W’s (cont’d) When? Tracking often occurs 24 hours a day on objects Tracking occurs for all waking hours of an individual because the devices are charged overnight Why? To allow criminals earlier and more effective parole options To protect future crimes from occurring (repeat offenses occur very often in the US) To help particular citizen be aware of particular individuals around them at certain times. Give up some rights in order to receive others


The Science of GPS:Criminal/Suspect Tracking: The Science of GPS: Criminal/Suspect Tracking Tracking Can Occur in 3 Ways A Receiver and Ankle Bracelet Combination SMART Technology Used for Parolees Also acts as a reminder for convicts not to commit new crimes If the bracelet and receiver are ever apart an alarm sounds Problems Doesn’t work in Malls and Closed Areas Simply covering the antenna hurts signal It only tells where convicts are, not what they are doing


The Science of GPS:Criminal/Suspect Tracking (cont’d): The Science of GPS: Criminal/Suspect Tracking (cont’d) The Digital Chip Method Constant tracking—less maintenance Would be a real, constant reminder of crime Allows anyone to have a way to be found at any time Provides for a constant reminder to not commit new crime Could be implemented on a widescale Controversial if required for all individuals


The Science of GPS:Criminal/Suspect Tracking (cont’d): The Science of GPS: Criminal/Suspect Tracking (cont’d) Tracking Objects, Not People Paperback sized GPS systems used mostly in Cars and Boats Less intrusive Can be done in secrecy to trail a suspect without him/her knowing Provides 24 hours surveillance at a much cheaper rate and with less risk then a cop following someone Less helpful in many instances no proof of who is driving the vehicle Can’t follow where the individual goes by foot


The Science of GPS:Practical Issues: The Science of GPS: Practical Issues GPS is being used more Better Technology Cost Effective More Publicity Multiple companies market GPS tracking technology like  Not Perfect… Buildings, and Heavily covered areas can’t keep a signal Still have tendency to break


Case Study:Washington State v. Jackson: Case Study: Washington State v. Jackson William Jackson reports his daughter missing—Mr. Jackson was the police’s main suspect The Police receive a warrant to search Jackson’s truck and before returning it place a GPS tracker on it Police used the data sent from the GPS to follow him to a remote storage unit in the woods where they found his daughter-dead Jackson appealed saying the Police did not have probable cause for the Warrant and that what they saw was not “public action” but instead “private”


Case Study:The Issue At Hand: Case Study: The Issue At Hand The appelate court ruled that a warrant was unnecessary The Supreme Court however did make the ruling that a warrant was necessary and therefore had to determine whether or not there was probable cause “The intrusion into private affairs made possible with a GPS device is extensive, as the information obtained can disclose a great deal about an individual’s life ” --Justice Barbara Madsen Washington State Supreme Court


Case Study:The Ruling: Case Study: The Ruling The court ruled that Mr. Jackson rights were not violated as there was probable cause for the warrant and his first degree murder conviction stood BUT, the precedent was established that at least in Washington State, GPS tracking required a Warrant


Case Study:Right, Wrong and Implications: Case Study: Right, Wrong and Implications In the End, Mr. Jackson was charged convicted of his heinous crime It is still not totally clear that a warrant should have been given New Rights for citizens A warrant is necessary as GPS IS NOT “public place” tracking “The ACLU applauds the court’s ruling in this landmark case. Tracking a person’s movements by GPS is highly intrusive. It is the equivalent of placing an invisible police officer in the back seat of a person’s car “ --Director Doug Klunder ACLU Washington Privacy Project


Opposing Viewpoints:GPS and Civil Rights Can Co-Exist: Opposing Viewpoints: GPS and Civil Rights Can Co-Exist GPS allows people more rights in the long term if some rights are given up As long as a warrant is issued rights are still protected It is NOT search and seizure because it only tracks actions in the public sphere


Opposing Viewpoints:GPS and Civil Rights Can Co-Exist: Opposing Viewpoints: GPS and Civil Rights Can Co-Exist It is an effective deterrent to crime Tracking individuals is a common policing practice It allows police to better protect everyone’s rights as it is cheaper and reduces the man hours it takes to track someone


Opposing Viewpoints:GPS and Civil Rights Can Not Co-Exist: Opposing Viewpoints: GPS and Civil Rights Can Not Co-Exist We have an inherent right to privacy and no one should have to be tracked Liberty means we can go where we want to, when we want to Good on the Surface, but HUGE potential for abuse Creates a Big-Brother State


Opposing Viewpoints:GPS and Civil Rights Can Not Co-Exist: Opposing Viewpoints: GPS and Civil Rights Can Not Co-Exist Tracking people is an undue loss of rights because even if we track them crimes are commited whose going to save a child from a tracked pedophile the police or a GPS receiver Theoretically warrants will work but with the new technology police are more likely to convince a judge to get a warrant Car GPS Tracker


Looking Ahead:The Future of Civil Liberties and GPS: Looking Ahead: The Future of Civil Liberties and GPS Civil Liberties are in limited danger for now… With the ruling in Washington, the courts are placing more restrictions on GPS More use will force US Supreme Court to answer the question of civil liberties and GPS Can Big Brother Watch?


Conclusions: Conclusions GPS and Our Rights: The Debate Centers on whether Motion is Public or Private Tracking The Science of GPS: 3 Methods Reciever/Ankle Method Chip Method Objects Case Study Washington Supreme Court says Warrants are Required Opposing Viewpoints Important Arguments on Both Sides…No Consensus even within the ACLU Looking Ahead New Technology brings with it new problems


Bibliography: Bibliography Aronson, Barton. “Do Police Need A Warrant In Order To Use GPS Technology.” 17 Sep. 2003 . Ko, Marne. “Keeping Tabs on Dangerous Parolees.” Report Newsmagazine Alberta. 4 Feb. 2002 Hilden, Julie. “Chipped: What Legal Questions Are the New Chip Implants.” 14 May 2003 Estrada, Heron. “Tracking Criminals with GPS Welcomed.” Star Tribune. Minneapolis. 10 Jan. 2004. “Tracking Device Allowed as Evidence at Trial.” LA Times. 18 Feb. 2004. Doherty, Brian. “Warrantless Tracking.” Reason Magazine. August 2003. “Something to Watch Over You.” The Economist. 17 August. 2002 Protech Website. www.ptm.com “In Landmark Ruling, Washington Supreme Court Says Police Need Warrant for Surveillance with Global Tracking Devices .“ 11 Sept. 2003. Sources Used Most Heavily although other sources read as background All Pictures Found Using Google.com Picture Search