# Cops Putting GPS On Cars Without A Warrant? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 27, 2010, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657 "2010-08-27T12:19:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/21 "2010-08-27T17:11:05Z")
What if it’s not the police? Does this ruling mean that private citizens can also attach GPS tracking devices to other peoples cars? Or is it just the police? And if it is, why? ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/22 "2010-08-27T17:22:42Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > Actually, **Bricker** , the driveway in this case was conceded by the Government to be part of the curtilage, and therefore was private. If you haven’t already, go and read [Kozinski’s dissent](http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/08/12/08-30385.pdf) [Warning: PDF] from the Court’s denial to rehear _en banc_. He cites _Kyllo_, _Ciraolo_, and _Knotts_ to explain his reasoning why this instance was so egregious. (Besides, Kozinski’s prose is usually some of the funniest and clearest you’ll ever find in a judicial opinion.) It’s a sticky issue. I don’t know whether to agree or disagree with him. But you gotta love a judge who will put stuff like this in an opinion: > [@](#): > > But there’s no limit to what neighborhood kids > will do, given half a chance: They’ll jump the fence, crawl > under the porch, pick fruit from the trees, set fire to the cat > and micturate on the azaleas. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/23 "2010-08-27T17:58:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As the court said: > > > [@](#): > > > > In Weaver, for example, the New York Court of Appeals expressed fear that to permit the police to use tracking devices “would be to countenance an enormous unsupervised intrusion by the police agencies of government upon personal privacy.” (citations omitted) “But the fact is that the `reality hardly suggests abuse.'” (citations omitted) We, like the Seventh Circuit, believe that “[s]hould [the] government someday decide to institute programs of mass surveillance of vehicular movements, it will be time enough to decide whether the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted to treat such surveillance as a search.” Is it common to interpret Constitutional matters through the perspective of, “So long as the police don’t use this investigative technique very often, then nobody’s rights are being violated?” That strikes me as somewhat strange for cases that don’t involve some kind of extraordinary, urgent circumstance (like having to break a door down without a warrant because of a fear someone’s life is in danger). This particular investigative technique clearly doesn’t fit into the sort of thing in which I’d think that common sense would dictate that the police be given more leeway… ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/24 "2010-08-27T18:02:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > > > I just can’t get my head around the idea that its okay for police to sneak onto my property without a warrant and place something on my car that tracks my movements. By that logic I should be able to do the same to their cruisers while they are parked outside a convenience store. You know, just a law-abiding citizen keeping tabs on our boys in blue. > > And by that logic, I should be able to arrest a police officer, or issue him a citation if I see him violate a traffic ordinance. > > But… no. Can’t you? Citizens arrest and all? I mean, good luck with making that work out well for you in the long run, but still. And on less of a tangent, I don’t think this is a good analogy anyway, since attaching GPSs to things is not a special enumerated freedom of the police. It’s supposedly an extension of just ocularly watching and tailing cars, which any PI or even a private citizen can legally do. So wouldn’t the argument to allow cops to attach GPSs extend similarly to private citizens? (Presume that the car is parked on the street if necessary to avoid tresspassing issues.) Also, is it actually true that the cops can’t paint your car purple? I’m picturing tagging you with a paintball gun rather than confiscating your car or something. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/25 "2010-08-27T18:05:18Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > The 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination has been interpreted to apply only to “testimonial” evidence, i.e. a person’s intentional communication of information verbally or equivalently. ISTM that this is equivalent to testimony - it is the same thing as refusing to give a detailed itinerary of your movements over the last few days. Certainly the pot dealer didn’t intend to give this evidence, or at least the police need to show that he did. If the cops had come to Mr. Pot Dealer and said, “Tell us what you have been doing for the last few days”, Mr. PD would be within his rights (obviously) to refuse to do so. And the police are **not** within their rights to do anything to force him to come across with that testimony. By planting this GPS, they are compelling him to provide the list of where he has been driving, and without probably cause. > [@](#): > > You aren’t incriminating yourself in the sense of the 5th Amendment when you do something that leaves evidence but isn’t testimonial in nature, like for instance traveling from point A to point B or leaving a fingerprint. Leaving evidence isn’t what I object to - if the police follow him around on the public streets and write down where he is going, I have no problem with that. But they came onto his private property to plant the GPS. This is not to collect anything; it was to force him to start providing the itinerary without his knowledge or consent, and without warning him of his right to avoid self-incrimination. It is certainly legitimate to come onto your private property to ask you questions, because you can always refuse to answer. This guy was never given the chance. And not because the evidence was in plain sight - they had to take active steps to compel him to produce the evidence, by planting the GPS. Did the Court say that the police could do this to anybody, for any reason? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/26 "2010-08-27T18:07:10Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Is it common to interpret Constitutional matters through the perspective of, “So long as the police don’t use this investigative technique very often, then nobody’s rights are being violated?” I find that odd as well. If it wouldn’t be OK to do it to _everyone_ (and the decision seems to leave open that it _might_ not be OK to do it to everyone), then why is it OK to do it to anyone? If I were to imagine an answer to that question, it would be “Well, the police had a good reason to suspect this particular individual of criminal wrongdoing.” In which case, great, then they should be able to get a warrant and prove it. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/27 "2010-08-27T18:11:17Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > > [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > > > The 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination has been interpreted to apply only to “testimonial” evidence, i.e. a person’s intentional communication of information verbally or equivalently. > > ISTM that this is equivalent to testimony - it is the same thing as refusing to give a detailed itinerary of your movements over the last few days. Certainly the pot dealer didn’t intend to give this evidence, or at least the police need to show that he did. > > If the cops had come to Mr. Pot Dealer and said, “Tell us what you have been doing for the last few days”, Mr. PD would be within his rights (obviously) to refuse to do so. And the police are **not** within their rights to do anything to force him to come across with that testimony. By planting this GPS, they are compelling him to provide the list of where he has been driving, and without probably cause. > > > [@](#): > > > > You aren’t incriminating yourself in the sense of the 5th Amendment when you do something that leaves evidence but isn’t testimonial in nature, like for instance traveling from point A to point B or leaving a fingerprint. > > Leaving evidence isn’t what I object to - if the police follow him around on the public streets and write down where he is going, I have no problem with that. > > But they came onto his private property to plant the GPS. This is not to collect anything; it was to force him to start providing the itinerary without his knowledge or consent, and without warning him of his right to avoid self-incrimination. > > It is certainly legitimate to come onto your private property to ask you questions, because you can always refuse to answer. This guy was never given the chance. And not because the evidence was in plain sight - they had to take active steps to compel him to produce the evidence, by planting the GPS. > > Did the Court say that the police could do this to anybody, for any reason? > > Regards, > Shodan Naw, it’s more like they’re attaching a tow cable to the back of this car to the front bumper of a police car with cops sitting in it. (Invisible tow cable, tireless robot cops.) The suspect says nothing; there is no self-incrimination. He just is dragging the cops along with him wherever he goes, without knowing he’s doing it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/28 "2010-08-27T18:17:27Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > What if it’s not the police? > > Does this ruling mean that private citizens can also attach GPS tracking devices to other peoples cars? Or is it just the police? And if it is, why? Police can do plenty of things without warrants that private citizens cannot. That’s why. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/29 "2010-08-27T18:22:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It seems to me you’re thinking of this more as a trespass than a privacy violation. The part that bugs me is the planting of a physical device. I’m not sure if legally that’s “trespass” or “privacy violation” or nothing at all, but it’s the part that makes me feel uncomfortable about this ruling. Here’s the thing: If I don’t have a fence then legally I can’t expect that people won’t see into my yard. _Maybe_ I can’t expect that they won’t enter my yard. But I can certainly reasonably expect them not to leave their things in my yard. And even if not that, I can _certainly_ reasonably expect they won’t leave things attached to my _car_. But forget about the yard. I don’t even care that much about where it happened. In general, I have a reasonable expectation that someone won’t _alter_ my property or go attaching things to it, even if it’s sitting on a public street. _Don’t I?_ As someone said, how is this any different than the police painting your car purple to make it easier to track (other than that their tampering would be readily detected in that case. And you seem to be saying (in your above response to me) that it’d be just as OK for them to plant something in my backpack, or slip it into my pocket, or tape it to the back of my shirt. It seems to me that such actions are inherently _far_ more intrusive than just watching me from a distance, even if the _information_ gathered from the two is the same. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/30 "2010-08-27T18:26:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > > > What if it’s not the police? > > > > Does this ruling mean that private citizens can also attach GPS tracking devices to other peoples cars? Or is it just the police? And if it is, why? > > Police can do plenty of things without warrants that private citizens cannot. > > That’s why. Since when is this one of those things? ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/31 "2010-08-27T18:29:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Police can do plenty of things without warrants that private citizens cannot. Well sure, obviously. But I think you’re missing the point of the question a bit, perhaps because you’re a lawyer and you don’t understand how clueless we non-lawyers are. When you lawyer types throw around the phrase “no reasonable expectation of privacy”, non-lawyers like me think “Oh, I get it. The police can do stuff like monitor you without a warrant when you’re in a place where _anyone_ can monitor you, because you can’t expect privacy there. In other words, it’s cool that the police do it because they’re just doing something any private citizen could have done.” So then when you say “Well, the police can also plant a tracking device on you” we say “Whuh? _That’s_ not something any private citizen can do! So surely I _do_ have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to tracking devices.” Then you reply “No, it’s just police can do stuff that regular people can’t.” Which is true and we all know it, but it does nothing to clear up the confusion I described above. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/32 "2010-08-27T18:31:17Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > > [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > > > The 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination has been interpreted to apply only to “testimonial” evidence, i.e. a person’s intentional communication of information verbally or equivalently. > > ISTM that this is equivalent to testimony - it is the same thing as refusing to give a detailed itinerary of your movements over the last few days. Unfortunately, there are a boatload of cases that disagree with your view of “testimonial” evidence. Drawing blood to show blood alcohol content: not testimony (Schmerber v. California, 384 US 757 (1966)) Performing a field sobriety test: not testimony (Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 US 582 1990)) Giving a handwriting sample: not testimony (Gilbert v. California, 388 US 263 (1967)) Participating in a line-up: not testimony (United States v. Wade, 388 US 218 (1967)) Provide a password to unlock your laptop that has child porn on it: not testimony (In Re Jury Subpoena to Sebastian Boucher, US Dist. Court, District of Vermont, 2009) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/33 "2010-08-27T18:32:45Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > Police can do plenty of things without warrants that private citizens cannot. > > > > That’s why. > > Since when is this one of those things? Since 1789. But as to electronic tracking, since the Supreme Court decided Knotts in 1983. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/34 "2010-08-27T18:34:08Z")
If I were to go up to a car parked on the street and slap a GPS transmitter to its underside, what could I be charged with, out of curiousity? I mean, we all know it’s wrong (I think), but what’s the specific crime? ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/35 "2010-08-27T18:36:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > > > What if it’s not the police? > > > > Does this ruling mean that private citizens can also attach GPS tracking devices to other peoples cars? Or is it just the police? And if it is, why? > > Police can do plenty of things without warrants that private citizens cannot. > > That’s why. Would a private, licensed detective be granted the same latitude, say to track the movements of a wayward spouse who is using a friend’s car as a dodge? Or did the courts specifically restrict this power to law enforcement? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/36 "2010-08-27T18:37:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@begbert2](#): > > > > Since when is this one of those things? > > Since 1789. Bull. I defy you to show me one mention about GPS trackers in any document from 1789. The closest you might get is if it said that a cop could attach _himself_ to the outside of your vehicle, for the purpose of tracking it. Which, I will concede, might be entirely legal. (Er, assuming you don’t drive into private property, in which case he’d be tresspassing/searching without warrant.) But I still **seriously** doubt that you’ll be able to provide any 1789 document that says that even that is something that cops and only cops are specifically allowed to do. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/37 "2010-08-27T18:38:53Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > In general, I have a reasonable expectation that someone won’t _alter_ my property or go attaching things to it, even if it’s sitting on a public street. _Don’t I?_ As someone said, how is this any different than the police painting your car purple to make it easier to track (other than that their tampering would be readily detected in that case. And you seem to be saying (in your above response to me) that it’d be just as OK for them to plant something in my backpack, or slip it into my pocket, or tape it to the back of my shirt. It seems to me that such actions are inherently _far_ more intrusive than just watching me from a distance, even if the _information_ gathered from the two is the same. In US v. Knotts, the police arranged for a store to slip an electronic beeper into the purchases of a guy and then tracked him via that beeper to a remote location where they discovered - surprise - a drug lab. The Court said: > [@](#): > > Visual surveillance from public places along Petschen’s route or adjoining Knotts’ premises would have sufficed to reveal all of these facts to the police. The fact that the officers in this case relied not only on visual surveillance, but also on the use of the beeper to signal the presence of Petschen’s automobile to the police receiver, does not alter the situation. Nothing in the Fourth Amendment prohibited the police from augmenting the sensory faculties bestowed upon them at birth with such enhancement as science and technology afforded them in this case. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/38 "2010-08-27T18:41:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Shodan](#): > > > > ISTM that this is equivalent to testimony - it is the same thing as refusing to give a detailed itinerary of your movements over the last few days. > > Unfortunately, there are a boatload of cases that disagree with your view of “testimonial” evidence. > > Drawing blood to show blood alcohol content: not testimony (Schmerber v. California, 384 US 757 (1966)) > > Performing a field sobriety test: not testimony (Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 US 582 1990)) > > Giving a handwriting sample: not testimony (Gilbert v. California, 388 US 263 (1967)) > > Participating in a line-up: not testimony (United States v. Wade, 388 US 218 (1967)) > > Provide a password to unlock your laptop that has child porn on it: not testimony (In Re Jury Subpoena to Sebastian Boucher, US Dist. Court, District of Vermont, 2009) Are these cases of things they can make you do after being arrested? Or just at will? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/39 "2010-08-27T18:42:02Z")
[quote=“begbert2, post:36, topic:551657”] > [@Bricker](#): > > Since 1789. Bull. I defy you to show me one mention about GPS trackers in any document from 1789. The police have been able to do it since 1789 because that’s when the Constitution was adopted, and it did not forbid them from doing it. But since there were no such things as electronic surveillance tools at that time, the courts did not pronounce it OK until 1983. Thus my edited addition: \*But as to electronic tracking, since the Supreme Court decided Knotts in 1983. \* > [@](#): > > But I still **seriously** doubt that you’ll be able to provide any 1789 document that says that even that is something that cops and only cops are specifically allowed to do. Don’t need to. States have always have plenary police power. Cops can do it as long as nothing says they can’t. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/40 "2010-08-27T18:44:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In US v. Knotts, the police arranged for a store to slip an electronic beeper into the purchases of a guy and then tracked him via that beeper to a remote location where they discovered - surprise - a drug lab. OK, at least from the snippet you posted the court seems to only care about the kind of information the surveillance gave the police, not on what was done to get that information. But is there any limit to this? Can the police trick you into ingesting a tracking device? Can they implant a tracking device under your skin while you sleep? (Let’s say you’re asleep in a hotel room to get away from the trespassing issue.) Is there _no_ limit to how intrusive the method of gathering data may be, so long as the data itself is no different than what you could get from standard surveillance? And if there is a limit, what is it? Or have the courts never ruled on that question? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657.md?page=3)