- Free Consultation: (813) 222-2220 Tap Here to Call Us
GPS Tracking Requires Search Warrant
“police violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches by tracking his movements 24 hours a day for four weeks with a GPS device they had installed on his Jeep without a valid warrant”
Why You’re Here: Can Police Use a GPS Tracker Without a Warrant?
GPS Trackers – Have you discovered you were tracked by law enforcement using a GPS device? Did police use cellphone location data or even shoot a “dart” GPS onto your vehicle?
The answer is clear: Prolonged GPS tracking by police is a “search” under the Fourth Amendment and usually requires a warrant.
GPS Trackers have become powerful tools for tracking vehicles, assets, and even people — but when law enforcement uses them, serious Fourth Amendment questions arise. In Florida and across the United States, police must often obtain a valid search warrant before secretly placing a GPS tracker on your vehicle. Without one, evidence gathered through this method could violate your constitutional rights and may be thrown out in court. As a Tampa criminal defense attorney experienced in GPS tracking cases, I help clients fight back when illegal GPS surveillance is used in drug charges, conspiracy cases, and other serious criminal investigations. If you believe you’ve been tracked without a warrant, call me today at (813) 222-2220 or contact me for a free consultation.
Illegal GPS Tracking
Illegal GPS tracking by law enforcement is a growing concern in Florida criminal cases. When police secretly attach a GPS tracker to your car without a valid warrant, they may violate your Fourth Amendment rights. This illegal surveillance tactic is often used in drug trafficking, conspiracy, and other serious charges — but the evidence may be thrown out if challenged. As an experienced Tampa criminal defense attorney, I help clients fight back against illegal GPS tracking and unlawful searches. Call me at (813) 222-2220 or contact me if you believe your rights were violated.
GPS Search Warrant Florida
In Florida, law enforcement must generally obtain a GPS search warrant before placing a tracking device on your vehicle. Without proper judicial approval, GPS surveillance can violate your Fourth Amendment rights, making the evidence inadmissible in court. If you’ve been arrested based on GPS tracking data, an experienced Tampa criminal defense lawyer can challenge the legality of the search. Contact me today at (813) 222-2220 or reach out online to protect your rights.
Police GPS Tracker Defense Lawyer
If police placed a GPS tracker on your vehicle without your knowledge or consent, you need an experienced defense lawyer who understands the complex laws surrounding GPS tracking and the Fourth Amendment. In Florida, police must usually obtain a warrant before using a GPS device to monitor your movements. As a Tampa criminal defense attorney, I help clients fight charges built on illegal GPS surveillance. Contact me at (813) 222-2220 or schedule a consultation today.
FAQ GPS Trackers
FAQ GPS Trackers
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. This protection extends to your reasonable expectation of privacy. The key question in GPS tracking cases is whether using a GPS device to monitor your movements constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment.
The case was United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). The Government’s attachment of the GPS device to the vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. In Jones, the Supreme Court held that the attachment of a GPS device to a vehicle, and its use to monitor the vehicle’s movements on public streets, is a search under the Fourth Amendment. The Court’s reasoning was based, in part, on the idea that the long-term, continuous monitoring provided by GPS reveals a wealth of private information. The original text accurately quotes the appellate court decision, which was later affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Generally, yes. Jones established that prolonged GPS tracking typically requires a warrant based on probable cause. However, there might be exceptions, such as:
Exigent Circumstances: If there’s an immediate threat to life or evidence is about to be destroyed, police might be able to justify warrantless tracking for a very limited time. This is a narrow exception.
Consent: If you voluntarily consent to having a GPS tracker placed on your vehicle, a warrant is not required.
Plain View: This isn’t directly related to GPS, but if evidence is in plain view (e.g., illegal items visible inside a car), it can be seized without a warrant. This doesn’t justify the placement of a GPS tracker, however.
Short-Term Monitoring: While Jones dealt with long-term monitoring, some courts have grappled with whether very short-term GPS tracking (e.g., a few hours) might be permissible without a warrant. This is a gray area and depends heavily on the specific facts and jurisdiction. It is best practice for law enforecement to obtain a warrant.
The use of “dart” trackers, as described in the original text, still falls under the Fourth Amendment. The act of attaching the dart to the car, even without physically entering it, is likely considered a trespass and, when combined with the subsequent tracking, constitutes a search under Jones. A warrant would generally be required.
This is a separate but related issue. The Supreme Court addressed this in Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ___ (2018). In Carpenter, the Court held that obtaining historical cell-site location information (CSLI) from a wireless carrier, which reveals a person’s past movements, is a search under the Fourth Amendment and generally requires a warrant. This is because, like GPS data, cell-site location information CSLI can reveal intimate details about a person’s life over time.
Yes. The original article we wrote years ago (see below) correctly mentions that California has laws restricting the use of GPS trackers. California Penal Code Section 637.7 PC makes it illegal for a private party (i.e., someone other than law enforcement) to use an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person without that person’s consent. Law enforcement is generally exempt from this state law, but they are still bound by the Fourth Amendment requirements discussed above (warrant requirement).
Do not make any statements to the police. Immediately contact a criminal defense attorney. An attorney can:
Investigate the facts: Determine how the tracking was conducted and whether a warrant was obtained.
File a motion to suppress evidence: If the tracking violated your Fourth Amendment rights, your attorney can file a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the illegal search. If the motion is granted, that evidence cannot be used against you in court.
Negotiate with the prosecutor: Depending on the strength of the case and the nature of the violation, your attorney may be able to negotiate a plea bargain or even get the charges dismissed.
Represent you in court
GPS Tracking Takeaways:
- Long-term GPS tracking of a vehicle by law enforcement generally requires a warrant based on probable cause.
- Obtaining historical cell-site location information (CSLI) also generally requires a warrant.
- If you believe your Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, contact a criminal defense attorney immediately.
GPS Trackers and the Fourth Amendment
Tampa Drug Charge Defense Lawyer, Attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr. reviewed an interesting appeals court decision where police put a GPS Tracking Device on a car and followed him for weeks. The defendant was arrested for Federal cocaine charges. Specifically, “conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine and 50 or more grams of cocaine base.” The court summarized a case involving evidence obtained from GPS Device. and commented: “conviction is reversed because it was obtained with evidence procured in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” U.S. v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544, 568 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
Technology Got You Down? Tell Me Your Story – Call Me (813) 222-2220.
On a side note, California, has made it illegal for anyone except law enforcement to use a GPS to determine the location or movement of a person. In some jurisdictions, GPS tracking of a person’s location without that person’s knowledge is a violation of an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy.” Some law enforcement agencies use “darts” a miniaturized GPS receiver, radio transmitter, and battery embedded in a sticky compound material. Cops shoot the darts at a vehicle and it sticks to the target tracking begins.
The Court further held “the whole of a person‘s movements over the course of a month is not actually exposed to the public because the likelihood a stranger would observe all those movements is not just remote, it is essentially nil. It is one thing for a passerby to observe or even to follow someone during a single journey as he goes to the market or returns home from work. It is another thing entirely for that stranger to pick up the scent again the next day and the day after that, week in and week out, dogging his prey until he has identified all the places, people, amusements, and chores that make up that person‘s hitherto private routine.”
The appeal centered on defense arguments that “his conviction should be overturned because the police violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches by tracking his movements 24 hours a day for four weeks with a GPS device they had installed on his Jeep without a valid warrant. We consider first whether that use of the device was a search and then, having concluded it was, consider whether it was reasonable and whether any error was harmless.” The court ruled that tracking with GPS was a search. A Search Warrant was required.
The Government used the GPS data to show a pattern of travels by the defendant. The Court mentioned, “This case itself illustrates how the sequence of a person‘s movements may reveal more than the individual movements of which it is composed. Having tracked Jones‘s movements for a month, the Government used the resulting pattern — not just the location of a particular ― stash house or Jones‘s movements on any one trip or even day — as evidence of Jones‘s involvement in the cocaine trafficking business. The pattern the Government would document with the GPS data was central to its presentation of the case . . . .” The court further noted, “The GPS data were essential to the Government‘s case. By combining them with Jones‘s cell-phone records the Government was able to paint a picture of Jones‘s movements that made credible the allegation that he was involved in drug trafficking.”
The Court also stated, “A reasonable person does not expect anyone to monitor and retain a record of every time he drives his car, including his origin, route, destination, and each place he stops and how long he stays there; rather, he expects each of those movements to remain ― ‘disconnected and anonymous’.” In closing the Court held, “Society recognizes Jones‘s expectation of privacy in his movements over the course of a month as reasonable, and the use of the GPS device to monitor those movements defeated that reasonable expectation.” The court concluded its forty-one page opinion stating the cocaine trafficking defendant’s, “conviction is reversed because it was obtained with evidence procured in violation of the Fourth Amendment.”
The complete opinion is a free download here.
Technology Got You Down? Tell Me Your Story – Call Me (813) 222-2220.