In October, we dicussed whether taking a computer out of screensaver mode violates the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches. (The Eastern District of Wisconsin has ruled that it does.) Today, we look at another technology-driven Fourth Amendment issue: the warrantless use of GPS devices on vehicles.
In September, Michael Virtanen of the Associated Press reported on one GPS case, and The Houston Chronicle printed the story. The State of New York planted a GPS device on a government employee’s private car in an effort to determine whether he had claimed pay for hours when he was not actually working, including at off-site meetings. The device was placed on Michael Cunningham’s personal car without a warrant and continued to track the car’s movements during evenings, weekends, and a family vacation. Based on the GPS evidence, a hearing officer decided that Cunningham had claimed pay for hours when he was not actually working. He was fired after 22 years as a director at the Department of Labor and almost 30 years as a New York state employee.
In a 3-2 decision, the Appellate Division dismissed Cunningham’s claims that the warrantless use of GPS devices on his car constituted an illegal search and seizure under the New York Constitution. Cunningham v. New York State Dept. of Labor, No. 512036 (N.Y.App.Div.2011) (slip op.; 11-23-11). The court noted that “the standard for using or excluding evidence at administrative proceedings is not controlled by criminal law.” The court elaborated:
A search conducted by a public employer investigating work-related misconduct of one of its employees is judged by the standard of reasonableness under all the circumstances, both as to the inception and scope of the intrusion …. Closely related, but typically applied when the search was conducted by an entity other than the administrative body seeking to use the evidence in a disciplinary proceeding, is the exclusionary rule in the noncriminal context; such rule is applied by “balancing the deterrent effect of exclusion against its detrimental impact on the process of determining the truth” [¶] It is undisputed that [the State of New York] had reasonable grounds at the inception of the use of the GPS to support individual misconduct by [Cunningham]. At the time of the current investigation by [the Office of the Inspector General], an earlier disciplinary action involving [Cunningham] was pending regarding false time records, and [the State of New York’s] investigation had revealed reasonable suspicion of a continuation of such conduct. [The State of New York] clearly had a responsibility to curtail the suspected ongoing abuse of work time not only to preserve its integrity, but also to protect taxpayers’ monies.
In August 2010, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled in another GPS case that should provide guidance for future situations, particularly those involving suspects in criminal cases. In U.S. v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C.Cir.2010), nightclub owners Antoine Jones and Lawrence Maynard were suspected of being part of a conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Police received a warrant to place a GPS device on Jones’s car within 10 days, and within the limits of the District of Columbia—the device was installed 11 days later in Maryland. Police tracked the suspect’s travels for a month, and the GPS evidence led to a conviction and a life sentence. The court reversed Jones’s conviction, holding that this evidence violated the Fourth Amendment.
As Adam Liptak reported in the New York Times, the U.S. v. Jones portion of the D.C. Circuit’s case has reached the Supreme Court. The justices heard oral arguments in the case on November 8. The Court’s opinion will of course be focused on criminal law, but it may also provide guidance in cases like Cunningham.
