Cindy Swirko
gainesville.com
Police have long used technology to try to nab criminals.
But now, with technology changing at lightspeed, legal experts and the courts are struggling hard to keep pace.
The U.S. Supreme Court this week heard arguments on whether police can install global positioning system devices on cars without prior approval from a judge.
GPS keeping track of cars and their whereabouts is just the start of it. What about police monitoring your cellphone to track where you are and where you have been? Or peering into your computer to learn what websites you are visiting?
At issue is the public's expectation of privacy versus law enforcement's use of technology to fight crime. Area police and legal experts say the stakes are high.
"That's where the cutting-edge law is being developed — the anticipatory or real-time gathering of information. It is giving us incredible information," State Attorney Bill Cervone said. "In some ways we are guessing our way through it as the technology expands. It develops now faster than it ever did."
Some believe police use of technology has the potential to be an invasion of privacy and a violation of constitutional rights against unwarranted search and seizure.
Supreme Court justices expressed deep reservations about warrantless GPS tracking during a hearing Tuesday. But there also was no clear view about how or whether to regulate police use of the devices.
Justice Samuel Alito captured the essence of the court's concern during Tuesday's proceedings when he said, "With computers around, it's now so simple to amass an enormous amount of information. How do we deal with this? Just say nothing has changed?"
Cervone said Florida law already requires police to get a court order to use GPS to track suspects.
Alachua County Sheriff's Sgt. Todd Kelly said the Sheriff's Office's use of GPS is primarily for drug investigations.
GPS can show in real-time where a suspect is. Data can be used to show if a suspect is frequenting certain places. It saves investigators the time and expense of physically tailing someone.
But GPS tracking alone will not build a case, Kelly said, because it can show only location — not what may be happening at a location.
"It is not necessarily used on its own. It's generally used in conjunction with surveillance. You may see on the computer that the car is at Williston Road and 34th Street, but if that is all you know, it doesn't do you any good," Kelly said. "If you have surveillance there, you can see that the person is meeting with another person and exchanged a briefcase."
ASO earlier this year used pings off a cellphone tower to build a case against two suspects in the murder of University of Florida student Saleha Huuda.
Police have used GPS when investigating officers. GPD, for instance, put a GPS device on the car of former Cpl. Bill Billings as part of an investigation that led to charges that he filed false work records and paid women for sex while on duty.
Billings eventually pleaded no contest to felony charges of scheme to defraud and official misconduct in June.
GPD Lt. Matt Nechodom said it would sometimes be more expedient to be able to put a GPS on a car without a judge's permission.
"They set the rules and we are going to follow them," Nechodom said. "There are times when it would be beneficial to use a GPS device when we come across a vehicle in an ideal situation. We can't control where some of these vehicles are parked and their accessibility."
Jon Mills, director of the Center for Governmental Responsibility at the University of Florida law school and author of "Privacy: The Lost Right," said he is surprised at the number of people who are not concerned about protecting their privacy or fully understanding about how much of their personal information can be easily accessed by others through technology.
Mills said he believes the Supreme Court will rule in favor of some restrictions on police use of GPS tracking because of the country's history of constitutional protection against unwarranted searches and in support of privacy rights.
The courts need to keep up with technology on the theme that government is not entitled to know everything about everybody, Mills said.
"There has to be a reason — thus the issue for a warrant. The technology is just too good, too intrusive and getting better," Mills said. "It sounds to me as if the justices are going to place some limits ... I would anticipate they are going to endorse some restriction rather than no restriction. I think that's good because the putting of a GPS on a car is just too easy. That's why we have the search and seizure provision in the Constitution — we as a society want some oversight."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
The U.S. Supreme Court this week heard arguments on whether police can install global positioning system devices on cars without prior approval from a judge.
GPS keeping track of cars and their whereabouts is just the start of it. What about police monitoring your cellphone to track where you are and where you have been? Or peering into your computer to learn what websites you are visiting?
At issue is the public's expectation of privacy versus law enforcement's use of technology to fight crime. Area police and legal experts say the stakes are high.
"That's where the cutting-edge law is being developed — the anticipatory or real-time gathering of information. It is giving us incredible information," State Attorney Bill Cervone said. "In some ways we are guessing our way through it as the technology expands. It develops now faster than it ever did."
Some believe police use of technology has the potential to be an invasion of privacy and a violation of constitutional rights against unwarranted search and seizure.
Supreme Court justices expressed deep reservations about warrantless GPS tracking during a hearing Tuesday. But there also was no clear view about how or whether to regulate police use of the devices.
Justice Samuel Alito captured the essence of the court's concern during Tuesday's proceedings when he said, "With computers around, it's now so simple to amass an enormous amount of information. How do we deal with this? Just say nothing has changed?"
Cervone said Florida law already requires police to get a court order to use GPS to track suspects.
Alachua County Sheriff's Sgt. Todd Kelly said the Sheriff's Office's use of GPS is primarily for drug investigations.
GPS can show in real-time where a suspect is. Data can be used to show if a suspect is frequenting certain places. It saves investigators the time and expense of physically tailing someone.
But GPS tracking alone will not build a case, Kelly said, because it can show only location — not what may be happening at a location.
"It is not necessarily used on its own. It's generally used in conjunction with surveillance. You may see on the computer that the car is at Williston Road and 34th Street, but if that is all you know, it doesn't do you any good," Kelly said. "If you have surveillance there, you can see that the person is meeting with another person and exchanged a briefcase."
ASO earlier this year used pings off a cellphone tower to build a case against two suspects in the murder of University of Florida student Saleha Huuda.
Police have used GPS when investigating officers. GPD, for instance, put a GPS device on the car of former Cpl. Bill Billings as part of an investigation that led to charges that he filed false work records and paid women for sex while on duty.
Billings eventually pleaded no contest to felony charges of scheme to defraud and official misconduct in June.
GPD Lt. Matt Nechodom said it would sometimes be more expedient to be able to put a GPS on a car without a judge's permission.
"They set the rules and we are going to follow them," Nechodom said. "There are times when it would be beneficial to use a GPS device when we come across a vehicle in an ideal situation. We can't control where some of these vehicles are parked and their accessibility."
Jon Mills, director of the Center for Governmental Responsibility at the University of Florida law school and author of "Privacy: The Lost Right," said he is surprised at the number of people who are not concerned about protecting their privacy or fully understanding about how much of their personal information can be easily accessed by others through technology.
Mills said he believes the Supreme Court will rule in favor of some restrictions on police use of GPS tracking because of the country's history of constitutional protection against unwarranted searches and in support of privacy rights.
The courts need to keep up with technology on the theme that government is not entitled to know everything about everybody, Mills said.
"There has to be a reason — thus the issue for a warrant. The technology is just too good, too intrusive and getting better," Mills said. "It sounds to me as if the justices are going to place some limits ... I would anticipate they are going to endorse some restriction rather than no restriction. I think that's good because the putting of a GPS on a car is just too easy. That's why we have the search and seizure provision in the Constitution — we as a society want some oversight."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
