Most of us have heard the phrase, "Big Brother is watching." Currently, the phrase relates to technology and the way that some in the public believe that the government uses it to track the movements of citizens. The past decade has seen advancements in technology, and more and more people are using high-tech devices in their everyday lives.

The trends put more people at risk of being monitored by the government, which is where the U.S. Supreme Court comes in. What started as a drug distribution case out of Washington, D.C., traveled its way to the court because of the constitutional issue it brings up and that is important to all of criminal law. When is using a GPS device to track a suspect a violation of their privacy?

The Washington Post reports that the court made a unanimous ruling on Monday that at least begins to answer that question, at least as it relates to the specific drug case that inspired the debate. Sources indicate that the judges essentially agreed in this specific case that the suspect's privacy was violated when police attached a GPS unit to his car and monitored his movements for about a month. They didn't follow the exact orders of the warrant.

That monitoring helped police connect the suspect with a large quantity of cocaine, but the court's recent ruling regarding the GPS use invalidates the investigation. This could mean significant hope for the defendant, who was sentenced to life in prison following his drug crime conviction.

Though the judges essentially came to the same decision, their reasoning did differ. Some justices identified the placement of a GPS device on a suspect's car as the constitutional violation. Others identified the duration of police's use of GPS monitoring. There should be some sort of limit on how long officials track the movements of a suspect, even with a warrant. When it goes on for too long, the tracking then becomes a violation of a person's expected privacy.

As you can likely tell, this matter creates some gray areas and will likely come up in cases down the road. The court's decision could likely be the first of many more that will build upon it with further details.

Source

The Washington Post: "Supreme Court: Warrants needed in GPS tracking," Robert Barnes, Jan 23, 2012