The Supreme Court today heard oral argument in the case of United States v. Antoine Jones. Jones was convicted of drug offenses based, in large part, on the evidence derived from a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device that law enforcement had put on his car. The GPS tracker was live for 28 days, tracking Jones’ car 24/7. When they put the GPS on the car, the police did not have a valid warrant.
The government says that it didn’t need one. They argue that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his travel on public roads. After all, they argue, the police could have tailed Jones in an unmarked vehicle and they wouldn’t have needed a warrant. Jones argues, however, that GPS tracking devices are uniquely intrusive — that they allow the government to collect a large volume of geo-location tracking data and use it to build a “mosaic” picture of a person, learning, for example, what church he goes to; what bar he drinks at; and whether or not he is a regular gym attendee.
The arguments before the Court reflected the challenge that the Justices will face in drawing lines. They were concerned, for example, by the government’s acknowledgement that the logic of its argument would place no Constitutional limits on the ability to put a GPS in literally every car in America — including even the cars driven by the Justices.
On the other hand, Jones’ attorney had difficulty in drawing a firm line between visual surveillance and GPS surveillance. Did the Fourth Amendment require the government to use an inefficient method?, the Justices asked. Repeatedly the Court returned to the idea that the resolution for the problem might lie in legislation, rather than a constitutional rule.
The government lost the case in the appellate court and the Supreme Court will issue its opinion before June of next year. Observers in the Court (including me) are deeply uncertain as to the ultimate result.
The Medill National Security Journalism Initiative has recently completed a project to develop resources for journalists on all sorts of issues related to the phenomenon of data mining — we call it “The Data Minefield.” At the Minefield, reporters can learn the science of data mining; review new technologies; hear from the experts on how to find stories; and browse through a collection of resources about government data mining projects. The Jones case is just one example. If you are interested in the topic, or just curious, The Data Minefield is for you.
