The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday about police use of GPS tracking without a warrant, posing concerns about unlimited use of the technology but appearing uneasy about whether and how to regulate it.
The justices likened their concerns to those raised in George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984” in oral arguments in the case of Antoine Jones, a District nightclub owner was arrested in 2005 on cocaine-distribution charges after police placed a GPS device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and tracked the car for a month.
“If you win, you suddenly produce what sounds like ‘1984,’” Justice Stephen Breyer told Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, who argued the case for the Justice Department.
Dreeben asserted that using GPS to track vehicles was akin to visual surveillance. The Supreme Court held in a 1983 case that people have no expectation of privacy on public roads. But that case involved using a beeper device that helped police maintain a visual on the vehicle during a single trip.
“That seems to me dramatically different,” Chief Justice John Roberts said.
Roberts appeared to be taken aback when Dreeben said placing a GPS on all of the justices’ cars and tracking them for a month posed no constitutional violation.
The justices peppered Dreeben with questions about the implications of long-term, warrantless surveillance, but also pressed Jones attorney Stephen Leckar about how limits could be defined.
Justice Elena Kagan noted that surveillance cameras are pervasive in cities like London.
“How is this different?” she asked.
Leckar suggested that a short trip might be permissible to track without a warrant, but could not clearly articulate what a workable rule for law enforcement might be. He maintained that police violated Jones’ Fourth Amendment rights simply by placing the device on his vehicle.
Justice Anthony Kennedy told Dreeben he had “serious reservations” about how the GPS was installed. The justices could rule solely on the installation issue and leave the questions about prolonged tracking for another case.
