The constitution protects us from unlawful search and seizure. However, in a constantly evolving age of technology, what evidence can be used to lead the police to places they are interested in searching? In August, we wrote a post about the legality of GPS tracking.

At that time, Antoine had been convicted of conspiring to sell drugs after the police used a GPS device on his wife's car for a month. Antoine appealed the conviction, saying the searches in which the drugs were found were illegal because the police did not have a warrant for the GPS. Moreover, the locations they searched were identified because of the GPS tracking.

On Monday, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled to restrict the police's ability to use a GPS device to track suspects in criminal investigations.

Their decision, however, was nuanced and did not address other questions about how the government can use the "information generated by modern technology for surveillance purposes."

When the court reversed Antoine's conviction, one criminal defense lawyer called it a "landmark ruling in applying the Fourth Amendment's protection to advances in surveillance technology." The justices stated that using a GPS to monitor movements constitutes a search, and therefore warranted a warrant.

In Antoine's case, the information provided by the GPS tracking was instrumental to the government's case. The tracking linked Antoine to a stash house where police and FBI agents found nearly $1 million in cash about 100 kilos of cocaine.

Another justice said that GPS tracking and other electronic monitoring devices can reveal a great deal of information about people. He wrote, "In the course of carrying out mundane tasks, Americans disclose the phone numbers they dial, the URLs they visit, the books, groceries and medications they purchase." Another justice wrote about toll booths that record motorists' travels and cars that come equipped to broadcast their locations.

The Supreme Court's decision is a great step toward protecting the rights of individuals as technological advances spiral forward. However, with all the technology that is used constantly, it can only be a matter of time before another case like this pops up, likely prodding at even more advanced technologically-enhanced surveillance.

Source: The Washington Post, "Supreme Court: Warrants needed in GPS tracking," Robert Barnes, Jan. 23, 2012