The Justice Department, which oversees the FBI and all other federal law enforcement arms, has memos that detail just how and when they can track citizens via GPS. But, they want to keep these memos to themselves. They have refused to release their views on GPS tracking to the public through requests by the ACLU. Instead, they forward copies of the memos with huge sections blacked out. Now, why would a governmental agency in a nation “for the people” be so compelled to keep quiet something that could possibly threaten the liberty in which the country was founded upon?
Surely their motivations can’t be devious, right?
The ACLU has repeated asked for the information contained within the memos, even filing a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act. Still, the government won’t budge.
The ACLU learned about the memos last year when an attorney for the FBI mentioned their existence.
The memos are said to outline the Justice Department’s views on applying the Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Jones, a case that was decided last year and determined that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution restricted the circumstances under which a GPS can be attached to a car to secretly track its movements. Though the ruling was generally received as a positive one, the justices didn’t say clearly that such tracking requires a warrant, nor did it address other issues like cell phone tracking, drones, or license plate readers. In other words, the court’s opinion left a lot open to interpretation—and we know where law enforcement typically goes with these open ended things.
While the Justice Department has released seriously redacted (blacked-out) versions of these memos, they only pique our curiosity more, particularly when they contain excerpts like these:
So the issues are…is [Jones] going to apply to boats? Is it going to apply to airplanes? Is it going to apply at the border? What’s it mean for the consent that’s given by an owner? What’s it mean for the consent if it’s given by the possessor?
[The] second memoranda [sic] is going to be about guidance about what this means for other types of techniques, beyond GPS, because there’s no reason to think that this is going to just end with GPS and some of that is going to be very much a judgment call.
Law enforcement agencies would love nothing more than to track who they want, when they want, and by whatever means possible. Your Constitutional Rights stand in the way of this. But when the High Court hands down a ruling on your protection against unreasonable searches and seizures (4th Amendment rights), it sends lawyers for these governmental agencies scrambling to determine how best they can “work around” the new ruling and how it applies to your rights.
When you are accused of a crime, it’s the job of your attorney to ensure these rights are not trampled. However, it makes it more difficult when we are told the largest law enforcement body in the country is writing policies and guidance and keeping them away from the people.
About David Matson