{"id":31168,"date":"2018-01-04T10:17:20","date_gmt":"2018-01-04T15:17:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=31168"},"modified":"2018-01-09T06:44:11","modified_gmt":"2018-01-09T11:44:11","slug":"az-passenger-in-a-vehicle-has-standing-to-contest-gps-surveillance-of-vehicle-but-here-gfe-applies-because-pre-jones","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=31168","title":{"rendered":"AZ: Passenger in a vehicle has standing to contest GPS surveillance of vehicle, but here GFE applies because pre-Jones<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"

The passenger in a vehicle subjected to GPS monitoring even for a few days and on public roads has standing to contest the monitoring. Here, however, the GPS device was placed in February 2010, more than two years prior to Jones, so the state gets the benefit of the good faith exception. State v. Jean<\/a>, 2018 Ariz. LEXIS 1 (Jan. 3, 2018):
\n<\/p>\n

\u00b632 We conclude that passengers traveling with the owner in a private vehicle generally have a reasonable expectation of privacy that is invaded by the government\u2019s continually tracking the vehicle through a surreptitious GPS tracking device. In addition to the reasons noted above, we note that since Jones, at least one other state supreme court has found the government\u2019s warrantless electronic monitoring of an individual\u2019s movements to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment under the Katz reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test. See Tracey v. State, 152 So. 3d 504, 526 (Fla. 2014) (\u201c[W]e conclude that such a subjective expectation of privacy of location as signaled by one\u2019s cell phone\u2015even on public roads\u2015is an expectation of privacy that society is now prepared to recognize as objectively reasonable under the Katz \u2018reasonable expectation of privacy\u2019 test.\u201d). And other courts have found that warrantless GPS tracking violates an individual\u2019s right to privacy based on their own state constitutions. See State v. Holden, 54 A.3d 1123, 1132-33 (Del. Super. Ct. 2010) (finding warrantless GPS tracking violated state constitution on privacy grounds and noting GPS \u201crepresents more than a mere alternative to conventional physical surveillance\u201d by enabling \u201c24\/7\u201d surveillance); Commonwealth v. Rousseau, 990 N.E.2d 543, 553 (Mass. 2013) (finding thirty-day GPS tracking of passenger in vehicle violated state constitution because \u201ca person may reasonably expect not to be subjected to extended GPS electronic surveillance by the government\u201d); Jackson, 76 P.3d at 224 (holding, prior to Jones, that warrantless GPS tracking of vehicles violates state constitutional privacy provision). <\/p>\n

. . .<\/p>\n

\u00b638 GPS tracking is qualitatively different from visual surveillance, even on public roadways, because it can monitor \u201c[t]he whole of a person\u2019s progress through the world.\u201d Weaver, 909 N.E.2d at 1199. For the reasons noted, we conclude that Rakas and Knotts are not controlling and that Jean\u2019s expectation of privacy from the warrantless GPS monitoring of his movements is one that \u201csociety is prepared to recognize as reasonable.\u201d Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 525 n.7 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Katz, 389 U.S. at 360, 361 (Harlan, J., concurring)).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The passenger in a vehicle subjected to GPS monitoring even for a few days and on public roads has standing to contest the monitoring. Here, however, the GPS device was placed in February 2010, more than two years prior to … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-31168","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-good-faith-exception","category-gps-tracking-data"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31168","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=31168"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31168\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":31241,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31168\/revisions\/31241"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=31168"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=31168"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=31168"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}