(Image Source: DigitalTrends.com)

BY MILA MIMICA


The federal government went head to head with Supreme Court justices Tuesday –over tactics some are comparing to George Orwell’s 1984.

“Should police need a warrant before planting a GPS tracking device in your car? The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments today. The government says people have no expectation of privacy when they’re traveling on a public street.”

CNN explains the hearings are part of a lower court’s appeal of a case in which police attached a GPS to a suspect’s vehicle and tracked it for four weeks.

“Police in DC did just that to a drug suspect in 2004 and eventually the man led them to 97 kilos of cocaine and 850,000 dollars in cash. He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison but a federal appeals court threw his conviction out on Fourth Amendment privacy grounds.”

The prosecutor’s argument was built on a 1983 Supreme Court case dealing with more outdated GPS technology. The Hill sets the scene for today’s hearing.

“Chief Justice John Roberts noted that police had to stay near the beeper to receive its signal.
‘That was 30 years ago,’ Roberts said. ‘The technology is very different and you get a lot more information from the GPS surveillance than you do from following a beeper.’”

Neal Devins, a professor of Constitutional Law, told the Wall Street Journal the law has long-term implications far beyond tracking cars.

"We live in a world where there's a greater sense that people can figure out where you are and what you're doing... [if the court sides with the government] the police can take advantage of new technologies however they want."

Pat Rowan, an assistant attorney general in the Bush administration, explained to NPR why it may be more effective for police not to seek warrants to gather surveillance.

"You don't know what they're up to. This is a low-cost device that would allow the FBI or any law enforcement agency to gather a great deal of information about their movements without having to go to a judge and justify their investigation."

A ruling on the case is expected in the spring.