Great article by Tommy Overton on the role mandated GPS installation plays in further destroying our privacy rights.

These devices intrude on a citizen's privacy

By TOMMY OVERTON • September 15, 2008 Tennesean.com

Only two states have held that the installation of GPS devices by police on a citizen's vehicle without a search warrant violates their state constitution as a governmental intrusion on its citizens' privacy rights. Tennessee should be the third.

An individual's right to privacy means no person shall be disturbed in his private affairs or have his home invaded without authority of law. The founding fathers could not have expected the effects of such advanced technology leading to diminished expectations of privacy. Certain acts of government presents the police with a web of rules that are meant to protect the privacy interests of the people.

Citizens of this state have a right to be free from the type of governmental intrusion that occurs when a GPS device is attached to their vehicle. The American Civil Liberties Union has objected to the use of such devices without a warrant by stating "the intrusion into private affairs with this device is quite extensive as the information obtained can disclose a great deal about an individuals life."

Vehicles are used to take people to a vast number of places that can reveal a citizen's preference and associations. When a GPS device is downloaded, it provides a record of every location the vehicle has traveled in the past.

It can provide a detailed record of trips to the doctor's office, banks, gambling casinos, places of worship, political outings, places where children are dropped off, etc.

A third party might be involved

It doesn't, however, distinguish the identity of the individual driver that is operating the vehicle. In many households, more than one family member has access to the family vehicle. It is definitely intrusive and offensive to be able to violate the privacy rights of a third party because a family member or some other driver of a particular vehicle might be a suspect involving criminal activity.

Allowing the use of GPS devices without a warrant would mean the above third-party individuals must more readily assume that they are the objects of government scrutiny. As one state judge writes, "an individual's freedom may be impaired as much if not more by the threat of the scrutiny as by the fact of the scrutiny."

The placement of a GPS device on an automobile without a warrant is nothing more than a fishing expedition into a citizen's private affairs. It is a technological substitute for vehicle tracking, regardless of whether the device is covertly installed by the police to the vehicle at a public place or while parked at a citizen's home. If police are not required to obtain a warrant before attaching a GPS device to a citizen's vehicle, there is no limitation on the state's use of these devices whether criminal activity is suspected or not. Courts have stated that one indication of whether a government action intrudes on a person's privacy right is whether a private individual would offend social and legal norms of behavior by engaging in the same kind of intrusion.

I should not be able to attach a GPS device to my neighbor's vehicle to track his activities or the activities of his family. Likewise, without court approval, the government should not, either.

Tommy Overton is a Nashville attorney.