12 N.Y.3d 433 (2009)
Under the New York State Constitution, the prolonged warrantless use of a GPS device to track a vehicle’s movements on public roads constitutes an unreasonable search, requiring suppression of the evidence obtained.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that the warrantless placement and use of a GPS tracking device on a suspect’s vehicle for 65 days violated the suspect’s rights under the New York State Constitution. The court reasoned that continuous GPS surveillance constitutes an unreasonable search because it reveals a detailed profile of a person’s movements and associations, far exceeding what could be obtained through visual surveillance. This level of intrusion requires a warrant based on probable cause.
Facts
State Police Investigator placed a GPS tracking device (a “Q-ball”) on the defendant Weaver’s van while it was parked on a public street, without obtaining a warrant. The device monitored the van’s location continuously for 65 days. The GPS data was used as evidence against Weaver in a burglary case, placing his van near the scene of the crime.
Procedural History
The County Court denied Weaver’s motion to suppress the GPS data. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding that there was no Fourth Amendment violation. A dissenting justice granted leave to appeal. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, granted the motion to suppress the GPS evidence, and ordered a new trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the warrantless placement and use of a GPS tracking device on a vehicle to monitor its movements on public roads for an extended period constitutes an unreasonable search in violation of Article I, § 12 of the New York State Constitution.
Holding
Yes, because the prolonged, warrantless use of a GPS device to track a vehicle’s movements constitutes an unreasonable search under the New York State Constitution, requiring a warrant supported by probable cause.
Court’s Reasoning
The court grounded its decision on the right to privacy guaranteed by the New York State Constitution, noting that this right extends beyond protection of property interests and encompasses the right to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion. While individuals have a diminished expectation of privacy in their vehicles on public roads, this does not equate to a complete surrender of privacy. The court distinguished this case from United States v. Knotts, where the Supreme Court upheld the use of a beeper to track a container of chloroform, emphasizing that GPS technology is “vastly different and exponentially more sophisticated and powerful technology” than the beeper used in Knotts. GPS surveillance provides a comprehensive record of a person’s movements, associations, and activities, revealing far more than visual surveillance could. The court noted, “What the technology yields and records with breathtaking quality and quantity is a highly detailed profile, not simply of where we go, but by easy inference, of our associations—political, religious, amicable and amorous, to name only a few—and of the pattern of our professional and avocational pursuits.” The court acknowledged that “searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment— subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions” (quoting Katz v. United States). The placement of the GPS device for 65 days did not meet any exception to the warrant requirement. The court explicitly based its holding on the New York State Constitution, leaving the federal constitutional question open. Citing Delaware v. Prouse, the court stated “An individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation…Nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles”. The court recognized that technological advances can easily produce abuse and found the risk unacceptable. Therefore, it held that absent exigent circumstances, the installation and use of a GPS device to monitor an individual’s whereabouts requires a warrant supported by probable cause.