The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens’ right to privacy and to not be subjected to unwarranted search and seizure. Now, in the day of vast technological advances, the parameters of that freedom are being questioned. One can’t help but ask: Is Big Brother watching?
According to the United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit, a case involving the means by which a drug trafficker was apprehended, call into question what unwarranted search and seizure entails.
In 2008, Juan Cuevas-Perez was apprehended in Illinois after a minor traffic infraction and, following a canine search of his vehicle, was convicted for the possession of heroin with the intent to distribute. He was tried in court and found guilty. However, he appealed on the grounds that his location was obtained unconstitutionally. According to the Court, the location of his vehicle was known because of a GPS device that had been placed in his car without his knowledge and that sent updates every 4 minutes for 60 hours to a Phoenix police detective. The obvious issue here is whether the installation of the GPS fits the constitutional description of unwarranted search and seizure.
When the Constitution was written more than two centuries ago, the Fourth Amendment protected people from government officials barging into their homes uninvited. Now, with Google Maps, GPS systems for cars and GPS systems attached to phones, the lines between maintaining and obstructing privacy have been blurred.
While it is of the utmost important for citizens to not feel as if they are being watched, it is also necessary for them to know that law enforcement has the ability to use advanced technologies such as GPS systems to ensure that criminals like Perez aren’t on the streets.
In addition, the Court explained that GPS technology provides the same knowledge that a law enforcement officer would if he/she was following the car. Therefore, it is also wrong to assume that Perez had the right to the same degree of privacy now that he had when the Constitution was signed. There have been obvious advances in technology that make that level of privacy impossible.
There is no question that the Fourth Amendment should be handled with care. The last thing many people want is a government that has inappropriate access to their personal lives. However, if the installation of a GPS device can keep destructive drugs away from society then the Constitution should not stand in its way.
The Constitution was written over 200 years ago and the advances that modern society has made, especially in the way of technology, make some of the means by which the Constitution is enforced obsolete. It’s time that the Constitution is brought into modern society as well.
The United States Supreme Court will decide the fate of the Fourth Amendment in November.
Reach the columnist at lweinick@asu.edu
Click here to subscribe to the daily State Press newsletter.
