{"id":4021,"date":"2010-12-29T08:31:40","date_gmt":"2010-04-03T08:20:03","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-04-03T08:20:03","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4021","title":{"rendered":"N.D.Fla.: GPS on car not Fourth Amendment violation"},"content":{"rendered":"

Placing a GPS device on defendant’s car violated no Fourth Amendment rights under Cardwell<\/a> and Knotts<\/a>. Alternatively, placing the device was at least with reasonable suspicion. United States v. Burton, 698 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (N.D. Fla. 2010), Magistrate\u2019s recommendation at United States v. Burton, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33515 (N.D. Fla., Apr. 1, 2010):<\/p>\n

Applying the foregoing standards to the facts of this case, it is clear that the Defendant’s request for operation of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule because of law enforcement’s use of a GPS tracking device on the Defendant’s vehicle to trace the Defendant’s movements must be denied. First, the Defendant had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the movements of his automobile on public roads. The Defendant “voluntarily conveyed to anyone who wanted to look the fact that he was traveling over particular roads in a particular direction, the fact of whatever stops he made, and the fact of his final destination when he exited from public roads onto private property.” Knotts<\/a>, 460 U.S. at 281-82. There is no Fourth Amendment violation for using a tracking device as a substitute for visual surveillance where “‘[t]he substitute … is for an activity, namely following a car on a public street, that is unequivocally not a search within the meaning of the amendment.'” United States v. Pineda-Moreno, 591 F.3d 1212, 1216 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Garcia, 474 F.3d 994, 997 (7th Cir. 2007)).<\/p>\n

Moreover, the intrusion caused by affixing the magnetic tracking device to the Defendant’s vehicle is minimal. The device was not placed on the interior of the vehicle, and required no dismantling, opening, or otherwise significant disturbance of the vehicle to attach or activate it. The Chevrolet Avalanche was not fenced in, kept inside a garage, or otherwise shielded from contact with any member of the public. In fact, the device was placed under the vehicle from a public sidewalk.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4021","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4021","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4021"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4021\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4021"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4021"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4021"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}