Law Enforcement Use of GPS Devices, and More from CRS
When law enforcement agencies use a Global Positioning System device to track the motor vehicle of a potential suspect, is that a “search” that is subject to constitutional protections under the Fourth Amendment? Or is it comparable to visual inspection of public information that enjoys no such protection?
The Supreme Court has not ruled on the subject, and lower courts have issued a range of opinions in different cases, according to a new report (pdf) from the Congressional Research Service that carefully delineated the issues.
“Depending on how one reads the courts’ decisions, one could conclude that there is a split in the courts regarding whether law enforcement must first obtain a warrant before using a GPS device. Conversely, one could also conclude that the courts’ decisions are reconcilable and that the outcomes of the cases are fact-sensitive.”
A copy of the CRS report was obtained by Secrecy News. See “Law Enforcement Use of GPS Devices to Monitor Motor Vehicles: Fourth Amendment Considerations,” February 28, 2011.
Some other new or newly updated CRS products include these (all pdf):
“Mandatory Vaccinations: Precedent and Current Laws,” February 24, 2011.
“The U.S. Postal Service’s Financial Condition: Overview and Issues for Congress,” February 24, 2011.
“War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance,” February 3, 2011.
January saw us watching whether the government would fund science. February has been about how that funding will be distributed, regulated, and contested.
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.