Argument against GPS tracking is getting personal

Sometimes, personalizing an argument can crystallize confusion. Take the issue of police use of tracking devices without warrants.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of Washington nightclub owner Antoine Jones, who was convicted of drug conspiracy charges after FBI agents and local police slapped a GPS device on his vehicle and tracked his whereabouts for a month.

A federal appeals court overturned the conviction, ruling that the authorities should have sought a warrant before using the tracking device.

During oral arguments Tuesday, “The justices were taken aback when the lawyer representing the government said police officers could install GPS devices on the justices’ cars and track their movements without a warrant,” noted The Associated Press account.

Good. Let’s hope that by presenting the issue in such personal terms, the solicitor general has alerted the justices to the dangers of allowing authorities to employ such techniques with few or no checks. For if we sanction the government’s use of technology to keep tabs on the whereabouts of its citizens 24/7 without regard to inconvenient concepts such as probable cause, we have surrendered to a police state.

Were the justices to uphold the government’s argument, they would be rendering obsolete the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. If law enforcement officials seek to use GPS devices to monitor a suspect’s every move, let them make their case for a warrant in front of a judge.