VIRGINIA COURT UPHOLDS USE OF GPS

The Court of Appeals of Virginia has joined a number of other courts in finding that attaching a GPS device to a car while it is parked on public property and maintaining contact with the car while a suspect is driving it is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

David L. Foltz is a convicted sex offender. He was employed and used a company truck in the course of his employment. He had permission to use the truck to drive to and from work and to stop to go to treatment meetings on his way home. The police knew that there was a series of sexual assaults in the area around his work and his meetings. They further knew that the modus operandi was similar to that used by Foltz in the past.

They attached a GPS unit under the bumper while the car was parked on the street near Foltz’s residence. The unit had the power to keep track of his travel and and to allow the police to track the vehicle in real time.

Five days later a sexual assault occurred. The police checked the GPS log and discovered that the truck was in the area of the crime. The following day they followed the van without using the GPS. They saw Foltz attempt to assault a woman and arrested him.

He was charged with abduction with intent to defile. He moved to suppress the evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds. The motion was denied. He went to trial and was sentenced to life in prison. On appeal the court upheld the denial of the suppression motion. The United State Supreme Court in United States v. Karo held in 1984 that it was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment for a supplier to put a beeper in an ether container and for the police to follow the vehicle by using the beeper.

The Virgina court and several other courts have found Karo to be precedent. They ruled that if it was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment to place a beeper in an ether container and follow the vehicle using the beeper, it is not a violation to attach a beeper to the bumper and electronically follow the vehicle. In both cases electronic devices are being use to accomplish a task that could be done with human eyes. If Foltz drove the truck where he could have been followed by the police in an unmarked vehicle then tracking the vehicle with an electronic device is not a violation of Foltz’s Fourth Amendment privacy rights.

The test for a Fourth Amendment violation is whether the government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable. While Foltz parked his car on the street, I suspect that if he knew that a GPS device was being attached to the vehicle he would have believed that his privacy was being violated. In fact, if I looked out my window and saw someone putting something under my bumper I would not only think that my privacy was being violated but I may think that it was a bomb and call the police. Certainly, if Foltz parked his car in his garage and officers entered the garage to place the GPS device on the vehicle we would all agree that Foltz had a legitimate expectation of privacy and that the government violated it. But because Foltz is not wealthy enough to have a garage the court finds that he does not have a legimate expectation of privacy. A Fourth Amendment right should not be based upon the wealth or poverty of the defendant.

But what I don’t understand is in many states, including Virginia, a defendant can be required to surrender his/her Fourth Amendment rights in order to be put on probation. If Foltz had been required to surrender his Fourth Amendment rights when he was put on probation prior to his current arrest he would not have been able to move to suppress the evidence and the GPS issue would not have been raised. In many states new laws mandate that sex offenders must wear a electronic monitor at all times allowing the authorities to keep track of them. Apparently this was not the law in Virginia at the time of Foltz’s arrest but it is certainly becoming more common. We will no doubt be seeing cases challenging these laws on Fourth Amendment grounds in the future.