GPS Tracking Without a Search Warrant

My question involves civil rights in the Country of: United States


Why is it the police don't need to have a search warrant to install a GPS tracking device, Without your consent, on your car? Doesn't this violate your civil rights?

I'm not sure how they wouldn't either. Apparently at some time the federal courts believed it was necessary as they included this in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; Rule 41:

Quote:

---

(C) Warrant for a Tracking Device. A tracking-device warrant must identify the person or property to be tracked, designate the magistrate judge to whom it must be returned, and specify a reasonable length of time that the device may be used. The time must not exceed 45 days from the date the warrant was issued. The court may, for good cause, grant one or more extensions for a reasonable period not to exceed 45 days each. The warrant must command the officer to:

(i) complete any installation authorized by the warrant within a specified time no longer than 10 calendar days;

(ii) perform any installation authorized by the warrant during the daytime, unless the judge for good cause expressly authorizes installation at another time; and

(iii) return the warrant to the judge designated in the warrant.

---

Quote:

---

(2) Warrant for a Tracking Device.

(A) Noting the Time. The officer executing a tracking-device warrant must enter on it the exact date and time the device was installed and the period during which it was used.

(B) Return. Within 10 calendar days after the use of the tracking device has ended, the officer executing the warrant must return it to the judge designated in the warrant.

(C) Service. Within 10 calendar days after the use of the tracking device has ended, the officer executing a tracking-device warrant must serve a copy of the warrant on the person who was tracked or whose property was tracked. Service may be accomplished by delivering a copy to the person who, or whose property, was tracked; or by leaving a copy at the person’s residence or usual place of abode with an individual of suitable age and discretion who resides at that location and by mailing a copy to the person’s last known address. Upon request of the government, the judge may delay notice as provided in Rule 41(f)(3).

---

Here is the applicability in CA which cites a couple of USSC cases as well as a 9th Circuit case:

Generally, it is proper for police, acting without a warrant or any particularized suspicion, to place an electronic tracking device or "beeper" on someone's vehicle, or in an object that gets transported by a vehicle, in order to monitor the vehicle, object, or person's location or movement, so long as the officer does so from a place he or she has a right to be. (Knotts (1983) 460 U.S. 276; Karo (1984) 468 U.S. 705; Zichwic (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 944, 956; Pineda-Moreno (9th Cir. 2010) 591 F.3d 1212.)

Individual states can restrict this practice if they wish, but the USSC has apparently deemed that one's movements in public - in a motor vehicle - are not subject to the same privacy rights they might have inside their residence. Since the police could essentially conduct visual surveillance without a warrant or any suspicion, I suppose the reasoning is that this is merely an extension of that.

I am aware of such rulings but why would there be such specific regulations in the federal law if none of it was even required?

It is, if nothing else, an invasion of one's privacy. I know I know; the vehicle is in the public eye so therefore there is no expectation of privacy. I will never agree with the courts rulings in this matter. To me, there is no real difference between this and sticking a tracking device on a person. Definately an intrusion of a persons rights in my mind.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I am aware of such rulings but why would there be such specific regulations in the federal law if none of it was even required?

---

The feds can hold to a higher standard in application if they wish to do so. That does not mean they must do so.

Besides, that rule which you posted does not seem to prohibit the mounting of a GPS tracker without a warrant, it only outlines the process by which to obtain such a warrant. When in doubt it is always a good idea to get a warrant, and the federal rules may not have changed, yet, as a result of case law.

Well that's not very encouraging...

Carl, if a search warrant is not needed based on the lack of an expectation of privacy for the police to attach such a device, based on that premise, I would have to presume it would be legal for a private citizen to use the same methods, right? For some reason I'm betting a person utilizing such a device would find themselves facing some sort of charges.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

The feds can hold to a higher standard in application if they wish to do so. That does not mean they must do so.

Besides, that rule which you posted does not seem to prohibit the mounting of a GPS tracker without a warrant, it only outlines the process by which to obtain such a warrant. When in doubt it is always a good idea to get a warrant, and the federal rules may not have changed, yet, as a result of case law.

---

Of course it doesn't say a warrant is needed. The only thing that states that is the Constituation. Everything else is simply explanatory of the terms in the Constitution.

My point was; although I accept the fed is not overly efficient in many areas, the fact they felt the need to include such rules would cause one to believe they thought such rules are needed. Unless a warrant was required, they wasted time and effort in establishing those rules. Doesn't sound like something the gov would do knowingly and intentionally.

and the last time that rule was addressed was in 2006.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Carl, if a search warrant is not needed based on the lack of an expectation of privacy for the police to attach such a device, based on that premise, I would have to presume it would be legal for a private citizen to use the same methods, right? For some reason I'm betting a person utilizing such a device would find themselves facing some sort of charges.

---

I suppose that would depend on state law.

It might be considered stalking ... it might not. An ex husband or boyfriend using it to track your comings and goings and then twittering it to the world or texting it to the victim could be criminal due to the subsequent behavior (worked a case like this last year). But the act by itself is not generally going to be unlawful so long as it does not interfere with the operation of the vehicle or record audio.

EDIT:

Oops ... I was slightly off ... private persons can NOT use them here.

Here is the law covering them in CA:

637.7. (a) No person or entity in this state shall use an
electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a
person.
(b) This section shall not apply when the registered owner,
lessor, or lessee of a vehicle has consented to the use of the
electronic tracking device with respect to that vehicle.
(c) This section shall not apply to the lawful use of an
electronic tracking device by a law enforcement agency.
(d) As used in this section, "electronic tracking device" means
any device attached to a vehicle or other movable thing that reveals
its location or movement by the transmission of electronic signals.
(e) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
(f) A violation of this section by a person, business, firm,
company, association, partnership, or corporation licensed under
Division 3 (commencing with Section 5000) of the Business and
Professions Code shall constitute grounds for revocation of the
license issued to that person, business, firm, company, association,
partnership, or corporation, pursuant to the provisions that provide
for the revocation of the license as set forth in Division 3
(commencing with Section 5000) of the Business and Professions Code.

exactly; so why is it illegal for a private citizen to use them if it is not required for the police to obtain a warrant. The laws are written to protect an individuals rights so that would mean the the state apparently believes it is a right of a citizen to be able to not be tracked constantly.

there is a huge hole in the law of your state as well:

Quote:

---

(b) This section shall not apply when the registered owner,
lessor, or lessee of a vehicle has consented to the use of the
electronic tracking device with respect to that vehicle

---

that means a vehicle co-owned by a couple is fair game for either party to install a tracking device. I would suspect the intent of the law is to protect a driver from a person who would be considering a violent action against them. Since a married couple getting a divorce so often falls under that situation, it seems to ignore the fact that many vehicles are co-owned by both partners in the marriage.

Federal court rulings have held that no warrant is required.

There are also some difference between federal and state actors. Federal law does not necessarily apply to state actors.

Also, courts will find exceptions to statutes or even case law when they really want to.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

exactly; so why is it illegal for a private citizen to use them if it is not required for the police to obtain a warrant. The laws are written to protect an individuals rights so that would mean the the state apparently believes it is a right of a citizen to be able to not be tracked constantly.

---

You will have to ask the United States Supreme Court.

But, as I said, states are free to restrict this as they see fit. While the USSC standard would appear to be that it is permissible, the state of CA has decided they do no want to permit it for ordinary citizens.

Law enforcement in my state can also often record conversations without the second party's consent - even over the phone even though a private person cannot generally do so.

State's can hold tighter standards if they wish.

Quote:

---

that means a vehicle co-owned by a couple is fair game for either party to install a tracking device. I would suspect the intent of the law is to protect a driver from a person who would be considering a violent action against them. Since a married couple getting a divorce so often falls under that situation, it seems to ignore the fact that many vehicles are co-owned by both partners in the marriage.

---

In which case the "victim" might be able to argue that it is stalking under the right fact set. Likewise, the "victim" can obtain a restraining order preventing the act, or, seek to re-register or title the vehicle in his or her name alone if they can.

WHY the states and the courts have permitted something is something you will have to ask the individual courts and legislatures.

Quote:

---

=cdwjava;497908]

Law enforcement in my state can also often record conversations without the second party's consent - even over the phone even though a private person cannot generally do so.

---

without a warrant?

Quote:

---

In which case the "victim" might be able to argue that it is stalking under the right fact set. Likewise, the "victim" can obtain a restraining order preventing the act, or, seek to re-register or title the vehicle in his or her name alone if they can.

---

if it meets the requirements of stalking. In itself, I believe it was a mistake in the writing of the law that allowed a loophole.
a

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

without a warrant?

---

Yep.

We're not talking about a wiretap, we're talking about a conversation with an officer, or, a pretext phone call with a victim, co-conspirator, etc. on our end and the suspect on the other - that sort of thing. John Q. Public cannot generally do that (though sometimes they can - there are legal exceptions) but we can. (more under PC 633)

Quote:

---

if it meets the requirements of stalking. In itself, I believe it was a mistake in the writing of the law that allowed a loophole.

---

By itself, no. But, in conjunction with other actions such as Tweets and texts to the "victim" informing her that he knows her every move it can be. We made just such a case last year ... guy was freaky scary.

Quote:

---

By itself, no. But, in conjunction with other actions such as Tweets and texts to the "victim" informing her that he knows her every move it can be. We made just such a case last year ... guy was freaky scary

---

In such a case, yes, I can see it as stalking. The problem I would see is a person that is not stalking as such but simply obtaining information, unnoticed, and at some time comes after the watched party. I can imagine such confrontations rarely ending well. There is simply no warning of the impending confrontation to as to be able to prepare or avoid them.

sounds like they are using GPS to detect location, are they sending this information or logging it.

if it is a log I can see GPS information as being admissible, but if the GPS location is sent via Wireless (Cell or HAM or the like) it can be detected + jammed and manipulated.

I sometimes wonder if I still live in America.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

In such a case, yes, I can see it as stalking. The problem I would see is a person that is not stalking as such but simply obtaining information, unnoticed, and at some time comes after the watched party. I can imagine such confrontations rarely ending well. There is simply no warning of the impending confrontation to as to be able to prepare or avoid them.

---

It would be nearly impossible to catch a suspect who was doing this unless they were Tweeting, texting, or showing their knowledge of the movements. Even then, it could be impossible to show just how they knew. In the case we worked last year, we swept the victim's car twice and found no devices emitting a signal. So, either the suspect used a very sophisticated device that was able to sleep or transmitted on a frequency we couldn't detect, or, he was using her cell phone GPS somehow. We could never show definitively HOW he was tracking her, but he clearly was given the messages he sent her.

Bottom line is that someone could probably get away with putting a tracker on someone else's vehicle. The only real limiting factor is power consumption (battery life).

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

It would be nearly impossible to catch a suspect who was doing this unless they were Tweeting, texting, or showing their knowledge of the movements. Even then, it could be impossible to show just how they knew. In the case we worked last year, we swept the victim's car twice and found no devices emitting a signal. So, either the suspect used a very sophisticated device that was able to sleep or transmitted on a frequency we couldn't detect, or, he was using her cell phone GPS somehow. We could never show definitively HOW he was tracking her, but he clearly was given the messages he sent her.

Bottom line is that someone could probably get away with putting a tracker on someone else's vehicle. The only real limiting factor is power consumption (battery life).

---

There are dozens of apps for phones that allow a person to track a phone, like this one. I think Sprint still has their "Family finder" which allows the account holder to be able to track all of the phones on their contract.





as to GPS trackers; there are some that are motion activated so they will only transmit while the car is moving. They often have a timer that shuts them down after some predetermined time (30-120 seconds). That saves battery life as well. If a person it creative, they can tap into the vehicles power so it would essentially never run out of battery power. A little electronic wizardry will take care of any unmatched voltage situation.

If a person doesn't want to do active tracking, they can get a GPS recorder that simply records their location. The person would have to retrieve the unit and download the data to a computer.

plus there is good old fashion simply following a vehicle. If a person employs the assistance of others, you can follow a person quite closely without them ever realizing it.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

There are dozens of apps for phones that allow a person to track a phone, like this one. I think Sprint still has their "Family finder" which allows the account holder to be able to track all of the phones on their contract.

---

Yes. I know that. There were ways, we just could no show WHICH way - especially since she changed phones twice (he bought the first phone for her, so that was a no brainer), and he allegedly never had those new numbers. But, they had enough mutual friends that it was likely he obtained it anyway and then finagled a way to track it.

Quote:

---

as to GPS trackers; there are some that are motion activated so they will only transmit while the car is moving. They often have a timer that shuts them down after some predetermined time (30-120 seconds). That saves battery life as well. If a person it creative, they can tap into the vehicles power so it would essentially never run out of battery power. A little electronic wizardry will take care of any unmatched voltage situation.

---

We knew that as well and checked both for power drains and any devices attached all over it ... we weren't new to this sort of thing.

Quote:

---

If a person doesn't want to do active tracking, they can get a GPS recorder that simply records their location. The person would have to retrieve the unit and download the data to a computer.

---

This was active. She was getting pretty much live updates on her journeys in some instances. The car seemed to have been the common denominator and the suspect was wealthy and a techno geek, so he could pretty much do whatever we hypothesized ... which made it that much harder.

Quote:

---

plus there is good old fashion simply following a vehicle. If a person employs the assistance of others, you can follow a person quite closely without them ever realizing it.

---

We ruled that out for a number of reasons.

Ultimately we had what appeared to be a solid stalking case .. but, she clammed up and went back to him ... sugar daddy and all. I suspect she and he came to some sort of arrangement. Kind of a pisser to have invested some time into this and then let it drop.

Quote:

---

cdwjava;497969]Yes. I know that. There were ways, we just could no show WHICH way - especially since she changed phones twice (he bought the first phone for her, so that was a no brainer), and he allegedly never had those new numbers. But, they had enough mutual friends that it was likely he obtained it anyway and then finagled a way to track it.


We knew that as well and checked both for power drains and any devices attached all over it ... we weren't new to this sort of thing.


This was active. She was getting pretty much live updates on her journeys in some instances. The car seemed to have been the common denominator and the suspect was wealthy and a techno geek, so he could pretty much do whatever we hypothesized ... which made it that much harder.
.

---

Now you have me intrigued. I would love to know what got passed all the investigations.

I would have enjoyed trying to frustrate his surveillance efforts. For just about any form of surveillance, there are means to block them or at least make their tracking worthless. Obviously as a police force, you have a lot of limitations in time and money and "games" you can play so it is harder for you, especially since your intent is to catch the criminal rather than simply toying with them.

Quote:

---

Ultimately we had what appeared to be a solid stalking case .. but, she clammed up and went back to him ... sugar daddy and all. I suspect she and he came to some sort of arrangement. Kind of a pisser to have invested some time into this and then let it drop.

---

:eek: I surely hope she doesn't need help in the future. I am sure you would not intentionally, or even with any passive disregard, ignore a call for help but actions like hers surely have to put an investigator in a different mindset. Her crying about the wolf stalking her and then moving into the wolf's den isn't going to make everybody all excited about helping the next time she thinks he is going to devour her. I can only imagine the frustration you guys deal with when things like this happen. I suspect it is similar with domestic violence cases in general when you see an abused spouse return home with "but s/he loves me. Things will be better...this time"

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Now you have me intrigued. I would love to know what got passed all the investigations.

---

We suspect he had removed any devices and ceased openly tracking her about the time she contacted us. She reported no more contacts with him like she had received only a day or two earlier. He may have seen where she went and then stopped, but that would have been tough since she and I met first away from the office, and then she had a friend bring her to my office without her cell phone or car.

Quote:

---

I would have enjoyed trying to frustrate his surveillance efforts. For just about any form of surveillance, there are means to block them or at least make their tracking worthless. Obviously as a police force, you have a lot of limitations in time and money and "games" you can play so it is harder for you, especially since your intent is to catch the criminal rather than simply toying with them.

---

We barely have time to follow up on cases, much less waste time on something that requires a great deal of time and effort to even make a weak case.

Quote:

---

:eek: I surely hope she doesn't need help in the future. I am sure you would not intentionally, or even with any passive disregard, ignore a call for help but actions like hers surely have to put an investigator in a different mindset. Her crying about the wolf stalking her and then moving into the wolf's den isn't going to make everybody all excited about helping the next time she thinks he is going to devour her. I can only imagine the frustration you guys deal with when things like this happen. I suspect it is similar with domestic violence cases in general when you see an abused spouse return home with "but s/he loves me. Things will be better...this time"

---

Domestic situations are the worst, and they are why so many officers don't get excited about them. The victim recanting or changing their story is about as likely as the sun rising. It can be quite frustrating.