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.
As humans expand our geographic reach, encroach on untouched natural territories, and interact more with animal populations, we will encounter novel zoonotic diseases that threaten the human body. The sooner we act to address these risks, the better.
This report serves as a landscape assessment and toolbox from which local governments can negotiate an informed position when it comes to the levers available to them and includes a first-of-its kind analysis of eight executed community benefits agreements.
When a hurricane hits, it’s all hands on deck – that goes for federal data, too. Pulling back from our investments in timely, accurate, and accessible public data will only make us less prepared and put us all at greater risk.
This is bigger than a singular elimination of race and ethnicity questions. It could accelerate the second wave of widespread reductions to demographic data, leaving public health officials with even less information to deliver better health outcomes for all Americans.