No Warrant Needed for GPS Device Placed Under Van
Police do not need to obtain a warrant to place a GPS tracking device on the undercarriage of a van and to subsequently use the information acquired to obtain a conviction for burglary.
In a 2-1 decision, a New York appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision to allow information from the GPS device to be used as evidence in a burglary case. The GPS device was placed on the bumper of a van while it was parked. It was not connected to the vehicle’s electric system nor was it inside the interior spaces of the van. Later, the information from the GPS device was used to link the defendant to several burglaries.
The appellate court found that there was no expectation of privacy regarding the movements of a vehicle on a public street. “Nothing in the Fourth Amendment prohibits the police from using science and technology to enhance or augment their ability to surveil that which is already public,” the majority wrote. “Inasmuch as constant visual surveillance by police officers of defendant’s vehicle in plain view would have revealed the same information and been just as intrusive, and no warrant would have been necessary to do so, the use of the GPS device did not infringe on any reasonable expectation of privacy and did not violate defendant’s Fourth Amendment protections.”
The dissent found that under the New York Constitution, there was an invasion of privacy. Justice Stein said he “would reject the ‘premise . . . that information legitimately available through one means may be obtained through any other means without engaging in a search.” “Stated otherwise, while the citizens of this state may not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place at any particular moment, they do not have a reasonable expectation that their every move will not be continuously and indefinitely monitored by a technical device without their knowledge, except where a warrant has been issued,” Justice Stein wrote. “At some point, the enhancement of our ability to observe by the use of technological advances compels us to view differently the circumstances in which an expectation of privacy is reasonable,” the dissent said. “In my opinion, that point has been reached in the facts before us. Thus, where, as here, no warrant was issued authorizing the placement of the GPS device on the defendant’s car, I would find that defendant’s rights against unreasonable search and seizure under NY Constitution, article I Sec. 12 were violated.”
People v. Weaver, New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Department, No. 101104, issued June 5, 2008.