A blog post in The Wall Street Journal analyzes the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling this week on warrantless GPS tracking. Since the court ruled that authorities violated the Fourth Amendment, the column queries, "is this the death knell for warrantless location tracking? Not so much." The ruling "is relatively limited" because it asserts that the suspect's property was intruded upon when the device was placed on the vehicle, but as technology advances, authorities will have greater means to survey individuals without intruding upon a suspect's property. According to the column, justices appear to be prepared to tackle that issue. Justice Samuel Alito said, "the use of longer term GPS monitoring in investigations of most offenses impinges on expectations of privacy," while Justice Antonin Scalia said that electronic surveillance "may be...an unconstitutional invasion of privacy." Meanwhile, in a blog post, Philip Gordon questions what the ruling will mean for private employers. (Registration may be required to access this story.)
Full Story