For those of you who like to dissect opinions from judges, here's one for you. A federal judge in Maryland, Susan K. Gauvey, refused to issue a warrant to allow the feds to use GPS to locate a suspect charged with a crime.
Her reason: warrants are usually given out to help authorities find evidence of a crime. In this case, all the feds wanted was to find a man they had charged with a crime. There was, Gauvey wrote, no proven crime. The judge said the suspect has a right to privacy not only "in his location," but also "in his movement." But she did add that had prosecutors shown that the suspect might flee attempts to arrest him, the issuance of a warrant would have been "routine."
You can read the full story here on the balancing act between cops and courts are playing on how to best use new technology that allows people to be tracked in real time. Part of the issue is that traditionally, warrants let police find evidence that already exists. With tracking devices, it allows police to ask for permission to snoop in places unforeseen.
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to take up the debate on whether police can place a tracking device under a vehicle without a warrant. Lower courts throughout the country are split. Gauvey found a whole new issue to explore.
Here is the full story. What follows are some selected quotes from people involved in the issue:
Former Maryland State Police commander Douglas Ward, now with the police leadership program at the Johns Hopkins University School of Education:
"For investigators, the cellphone has become one of the greatest tools available. The ability to track the location of cellphones has become almost routine. To have that threatened in any way is going to make policing much less efficient. But certainly we want to do this the right way and protect people's rights. This technology is going to cause more and more of these arguments, and the courts are going to have to settle how it all turns out. Like anything else, there can be abuses. Justice demands that we weigh that."
U.S. Judge Susan K. Gauvey:
"To some, this use would appear reasonable, even commendable and efficient." But, the judge wrote, "To others, this use of location data by law enforcement would appear chillingly invasive and unnecessary in the apprehension of defendants."
Gauvey wrote that turning down the government's request "does not frustrate or impede law enforcement's important efforts, but rather places them within the Constitutional and statutory framework which balances citizens' rights of privacy against government's protection of society."
The judge wrote, however, that her ruling "does place the precise location information out of the government's casual reach."
Maryland U.S. Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein:
"We have never needed such an order in any case before or since, as far as I know, so there is little reason to appeal the moot opinion. The Justice Department is not proposing to use GPS to track random citizens. The person sought in this case was a felony criminal defendant for whom authorities had an arrest warrant. … Because of the circumstances of the case … they were concerned that he would flee if they called to ask him to turn himself in."
Nathan S. Judish, a senior counsel in the computer crimes and intellectual property division within the U.S. Department of Justice, during a hearing with Gauvey:
"I think we are entitled to take reasonable steps to effectuate an arrest warrant and determine the location of the person subject to the arrest warrant. It seems to me extremely reasonable. We need to go where the person is and arrest them."
