home

Delaware Judge Rules No GPS Tracking Without Warrant

A judge in Delaware has ruled police may not use GPS devices to track a suspect 24/7 without a warrant. The ruling is based on Delaware's state constitution, which like those in many states, provides greater protection than the federal counterpart. In suppressing the evidence obtained from the surveillance, the Judge wrote:

"The advance of technology will continue ad infinitum....An Orwellian state is now technologically feasible. Without adequate judicial preservation of privacy, there is nothing to protect our citizens from being tracked 24/7."

Though police can follow a suspect in public, there are limits to how long officers can keep up the tail, whereas a GPS device never sleeps and "provides more information than one reasonably expects to be 'exposed to the public,' " the judge wrote....

....if no warrant is required for such surveillance, "any individual could be tracked indefinitely without suspicion of any crime. ... No one should be subject to such scrutiny by police without probable cause,"

There is a split among courts on the issue. While the decision may be appealed, for now Delaware joins New York, Oregon and Massachusetts which say a warrant is required.

< DOJ Withdraws Bush Rules for Fast-Tracking Death Penalty Cases | Feds Sue To Get Michigan Medical Marijuana User Records >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Halfway promising, I guess...? (none / 0) (#1)
    by EL seattle on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 12:40:47 AM EST
    ....if no warrant is required for such surveillance, "any individual could be tracked indefinitely without suspicion of any crime. ... No one should be subject to such scrutiny by police without probable cause,"

    Are there legal protections in place that actively prevent the non-police from performing similar surveillance and tracking on other people?

    If cheap technologies exists, they always seem to get used.  And not always in ways that are beneficial and productive.

    A judge.. (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 09:04:22 AM EST
    dropping "Orwellian" in a decision?  I like this lady.

    Figures our police state authoritarians saw no issue with tagging the suspect like cattle, without a warrant.  It's a sad state of affairs.

    Oregon (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 10:47:19 AM EST
    May have a law, but the Court of Appeals in the Ninth Circuit (of which Oregon is a part) said no, a warrant isn't required.  See US v. Pineda-Moreno

    (Opinion denying en banc hearing here).

    Is there a way to track which states.... (none / 0) (#4)
    by magster on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 01:58:04 PM EST
    ...provide greater services or judicial protections than others?  The way some of the conservative states are going, I forsee a time where there will be mass intra-country migration from states denying basic freedoms, health care, state and local services, etc.

    New Hampshire... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 02:04:30 PM EST
    is always a good bet if freedom is your main bag.

    Parent
    "Live free or die." (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 02:11:37 PM EST