Pubdate: Tue, 07 Aug 2012
Source: Wall Street Journal (US)
Copyright: 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Contact:  http://www.wsj.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/487
Author: Jess Bravin

GPS TRACKING CASE UPHELD BY COURT

A federal appeals court in Portland, Ore., Monday upheld the
conviction of a suspected marijuana grower who had his car tracked by
a GPS device installed without a search warrant, but declined to
address broader privacy issues arising from an earlier Supreme Court
ruling.

The high court in January threw out another conviction authorities
obtained through warrantless GPS tracking, in a case widely noted for
its implications about privacy in a digital age.

At the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Obama administration
had argued that contrary to appearances, the Supreme Court's unanimous
decision actually didn't require police to obtain warrants before
installing global positioning system tracking devices.

Writing for a three-member panel, Ninth Circuit Judge Diarmuid
O'Scannlain wrote that in 2007, when Drug Enforcement Administration
agents attached a tracker to suspect Juan Pineda-Moreno's Jeep Grand
Cherokee, the government appropriately relied on then-valid Ninth
Circuit precedent allowing such actions. A 1999 Ninth Circuit case had
concluded that installing mobile tracking devices was neither a search
nor seizure, and therefore didn't trigger the Fourth Amendment's
protection from "unreasonable searches and seizures."

Mr. Pineda-Moreno's appeal was pending at the Supreme Court when it
issued the January decision, U.S. v. Jones. The high court then asked
the Ninth Circuit to revisit the Pineda-Moreno case in light of Jones.

The Justice Department had hoped for a broader blessing of warrantless
GPS tracking. It wrote in its brief to the Ninth Circuit that
"requiring a warrant and probable cause would seriously impede the
government's ability to investigate drug trafficking, terrorism and
other crimes." GPS trackers cause only a "limited intrusion" on
personal privacy, the government argued.

Judge O'Scannlain declined to address that claim. While recognizing
that the January Supreme Court case "at least partially overrules" the
Ninth Circuit's precedents, "we can address the effect of Jones more
fully in future cases," the judge wrote.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt