When the police suspected a nightclub owner might be involved in illegal drug activity, they obtained a search warrant to attach a GPS tracking device to monitor his movements. But the police did not attach the device to the suspect's car until after the warrant had expired and did so outside of the jurisdiction in which they were authorized to do so. The Supreme Court ruled that attaching the GPS device amounted to a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment and was therefore improper absent a valid warrant. The conviction was therefore reversed.

In this modern age of smart phones and other new technologies, there is more data floating about each of us floating around than ever before. These new technologies raise novel questions about the application of our bedrock constitutional freedoms and rights. The framers of the Constitution could likely never have imagined that a small device would be able to track every one of our movements via a global positioning satellite. Yet the rights enshrined in the Constitution and the Courts' evolving interpretation of those rights continues to protect us from abuses of power by law enforcement.

This case is interesting not only because the Court unanimously ruled that the manner of GPS tracking used was improper absent a search warrant, but also for the reasoning employed by the majority opinion. Rather than relying upon an infringement of the suspect's reasonable expectation of privacy, the majority said that the tracking constituted a search because it required a trespass onto the suspect's property when the police attached the device to the undercarriage of his car.

Source: NJ.com, "Warrant needed for GPS tracking, high court says," Jan. 23, 2012