According to the article in the USA Today by Joan Biskupic, the Supreme Court ruled that the police is required to have a warrant in order to attach a GPS device on an individual’s car for tracking. When the case was discussed in court, there were a set of parallels between the police ability to track a person’s location and the Orwell’s novel 1984. Thus, the court’s decision ensures that the police is unable to use the GPS for tracking a suspect without obtaining a warrant by presenting sufficient grounds for this procedure. President of the Constitution Project, Virginia Sloan stated that “Fourth Amendment must continue to protect against government intrusions even in the face of modern technological surveillance tools” (qtd. in Biskupic 6).
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
The above article is closely linked to the term of judicial review that is connected with the power of the judicial system to review and declare some actions of the executive and legislative branches, if necessary (Ginsberg, Lowi, Weir, Tolbert and Spitzer 376). Judicial review is concerned with the fact whether the law has been applied correctly in a particular case. Moreover, the review is linked to the supervision of the decisions made by an administrative body. It is considered an effective way of convincing the necessity entity to reconsider the decision or encourage to begin immediate action. A judicial review can make a significant difference when it come to the court decision. On the other hand, a judicial review can become a complicated process because the court system is designed for lawyers, not the general public. Moreover, it can be quite expensive. For these two reasons, is a person decides to conduct a judicial review, it is advised to get some help from the specialist in the field.
Since the U.S. Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power of judicial reviews over congression enactments, its exercise is “something of a usurpation” (Ginsberg et al. 376). It is not clearly stated that the Constitution opposes the judicial review, however, even if there were some provisions for it, there were done in a very vague way. Thus, the review of the Supreme Court of the GPS tracking use that has no background evidence was crucial in improving the individual’s right for privacy prior to submission of substantial evidence against him or her. In addition, there would be no violations of privacy linked to the long-term monitoring of the vehicle driven. However, installation of the GPS device is not considered illegal the issue lies in the expectation of privacy. According to Samuel Alito, “We need not identify with precision the point at which the tracking of this vehicle became a search, for the line was surely crossed before the 4-week mark” (qtd. in Biskupic 9). His statement was also supported by Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
In my opinion, the unwarranted use of the GPS equipment falls under the judicial review conducted by the Supreme Court. The use intrusive surveillance violates the individual’s civil liberties, especially when there is no reliable evidence for using such equipment. The Fourth Amendment clearly states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” (Time 2). Thus, the Supreme Court ruling about requiring a warrant in order to attach a GPS device for tracking an individual’s location supports the rights for privacy and freedom of every U.S. citizen.
Biskupic, Joan. Supreme Court Rules Warrant Needed for GPS Tracking. 2012. Web.
Ginsberg, Benjamin, Theodore Lowi, Margaret Weir, Caroline Tolbert and Robert Spitzer. We the People: An Introduction to American Politics. 9th ed. 2012. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. Print.
Time. We the People. Your Fourth Amendment Right to Privacy. n.d. Web.
100% original paper
on any topic
done in as little as