{"id":5194,"date":"2011-12-21T13:59:23","date_gmt":"2011-02-15T07:38:48","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-02-15T07:38:48","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5194","title":{"rendered":"W.D.Mich.: GPS monitoring of vehicle valid, declining to follow Maynard<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Live monitoring of GPS on defendant\u2019s car four separate times did not violate the Fourth Amendment, straining to find a way to distinguish Maynard<\/a>, and following the majority view. United States v. Walker, 771 F. Supp. 2d 803 (W.D. Mich. 2011):<\/p>\n

As Defendant notes in her objections, the Supreme Court has not yet considered whether GPS monitoring of a vehicle\u2019s location constitutes a Fourth Amendment search, but several circuit courts have and are split on the issue. (Objections \u00b6 11.) Defendant relies on a recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit holding that prolonged GPS monitoring \u2014 24 hours a day for four weeks \u2014 was a Fourth Amendment search and was unreasonable without a warrant. United States v. Maynard<\/a>, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010). It appears, however, that the great weight of the law from other federal circuits rejects this view. See United States v. Garcia<\/a>, 474 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding that GPS tracking is not a search); United States v. Pineda-Moreno<\/a>, 591 F.3d 1212, 1217 (9th Cir. 2010) (\u201cWe conclude that the police did not conduct an impermissible search of [defendant\u2019s] car by monitoring its location with mobile tracking devices.\u201d), reh\u2019g en banc denied 617 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2010); see also United States v. Sparks, No. 10-10067, 750 F. Supp. 2d 384, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120257 at *34 (D. Mass. 2010) (\u201c[N]o warrant or other court order is necessary to install or monitor the GPS.\u201d); Morton v. Nassau County Police Dep\u2019t, No. 05-CV-4000, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87558, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2007) (\u201c[T]he use of the GPS Device was not an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.\u201d); United States v. Jesus-Nunez, No. 1:10-CR-00017, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76107, at *12 (M.D. Pa. July 27, 2010) (\u201c[T]here was no Fourth Amendment search or seizure by the Government\u2019s use of the GPS device.\u201d); United States v. Williams<\/a>, 650 F. Supp. 2d 633, 668 (W.D. Ky. 2009) (\u201c[T]he Court is comfortable in concluding that no search warrant or other court order was required to permit the officers to lawfully attach the electronic tracking devices to the exterior of [defendants\u2019] automobiles.\u201d); United States v. Burton<\/a>, 698 F. Supp. 2d 1303, 1307 (N.D. Fla. 2010) (\u201cThere is no Fourth Amendment violation for using a tracking device … where the 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.\u201d (internal quotation marks omitted)).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Same outcome: United States v. Fisher, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13749 (W.D. Mich. January 11, 2011).<\/p>\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-5194","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5194","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=5194"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5194\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5194"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5194"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5194"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}