The Korea Herald

지나쌤

In GPS case, US court debates '1984' scenario

By

Published : Nov. 9, 2011 - 11:15

    • Link copied

The US Supreme Court delved Tuesday into the issue of privacy amid 21st century technology, hearing arguments on whether police can use a GPS device attached to a vehicle to track a suspect without a search warrant.

The US government asked the justices to reinstate the conviction of Washington nightclub owner Antoine Jones for drug dealing which had been overturned by an appeals court which found the warrantless tracking "creepy" and "un-American."

At issue is whether by attaching a GPS, or Global Positioning System, tracking device without a warrant, police violated the man's constitutional guarantee in the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure.

The case has drawn wide interest from civil liberties groups amid concern that new technologies can be used to get around constitutional protections of privacy and other rights.

Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben told the nine justices on the top US court that the GPS device simply monitored the suspect's location on public streets, which could be done by police visually without the need for a warrant.

The US government attorney said the GPS technology simply "can make police more efficient" and that "police efficiency has never been equated with an invasion of privacy."

But comments from the justices were skeptical.

"If you win this case, there is nothing preventing you from monitoring the movements of every citizen of the United States 24 hours a day," said Justice Stephen Breyer.

"If you win, you produce something that sounds like '1984,'" he said, making a reference to the George Orwell novel.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the surveillance could increase as technology improves.

Under the same logic used by the government, she said, "it would be OK to take a computer chip and put it on somebody's overcoat and follow them" without a warrant or "track people with smartphones."

Attorney Stephen Leckar argued on behalf of Jones that allowing the evidence to be used in court would give police "the capacity to engage in a grave abuse of liberties."

Leckar said the use of the tracking device was "an unreasonable invasion of privacy" and that police must obtain a warrant to avoid a constitutional violation.

But the justices pointed out that setting any standard is complex.

"What is the difference between following somebody for 12 hours and monitoring someone using GPS for 12 hours?" asked Justice Samuel Alito.

The case is seen as an important test of how far police can go in using technology to investigate and track suspects.

In the Jones case, police had obtained a warrant to place the device in the suspect's car, but it had expired.

Police used the GPS device to track Jones to a stash house, where they found cocaine, weapons and drug paraphernalia. He was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and sentenced to life in prison.

An appellate court overturned the conviction, and Judge Alex Kozinski wrote in his opinion: "There is something creepy and un-American about such clandestine and underhanded behavior. To those of us who have lived under a totalitarian regime, there is an eerie feeling of deja vu."

At the Supreme Court hearing Tuesday, Chief Justice John Roberts pondered how far police could go in such investigations.

"If you put a GPS on all of our cars and monitored our movements for a month, would that be OK?" he asked the Justice Department lawyer.

"The answer is yes," Dreeben replied. "The FBI could put surveillance on any individual."

Outside the court, co-defense lawyer Walter Dellinger said the admission by the government that a few thousand GPS devices are being used in similar cases was "not very reassuring" and said it was an "intrusion into the rights" of Jones and others, if no warrant is obtained.

The top court is expected to rule on the case before its term ends next June.

Among those following the case, some say it is a preview of what is expected to be more critical cases of whether police can use GPS-enabled smartphones to track individuals, also without a warrant.

The decision may shed light "on whether government agents are required to get a warrant before accessing location information generated by use of a cellular telephone, laptop computer, tablet computer, or other mobile computing device," according to the Center for Democracy and Technology, an advocacy group.

"While the methodology of mobile phone tracking differs from GPS... the privacy interests at stake are quite similar."

 

<한글기사>

영장無 GPS위치추적, 오웰의 '1984년'과 같아

국가가 영장 없이 위성위치정보시스템(GPS) 기기를 이용해 개인 위치를 추적할수 있는지 문제가 미국 연방대법원에서 '뜨거운 감자'로  떠 올랐다.

특히 스마트폰 등 GPS 기기가 보편화하는 시점에서 국가에 이러한 권한을 부여하면 전체주의 체제를 다룬 조지 오웰의 소설 '1984년'처럼 될 것이라는 지적도 대법관 사이에서 나와 관심이 한층 커지고 있다.

논란의 발단은 지난 2008년 경찰이 용의자 차량에 부착한 GPS 기기를 이용해 마약상 앤트완 존스의 행적을 추적, 숨겨 놓은 코카인과 무기 등을 발견해 기소한 사건이다.

존스는 유죄가 인정돼 무기징역을 선고받았지만, 미 항소법원은 영장없이 존스를 GPS로 추적한 것이 불합리한 압수·수색을 금지한 미 수정헌법 4조에 어긋난다고 판결했고 미 연방정부는 대법원에 상고했다.

8일(현지시간) 열린 대법원 심리에서 정부 변호인으로 나온 마이클 드리븐 법무 차관보는 경찰이 육안으로 용의자 위치를 쫓는 것과 마찬가지로 GPS는 공공도로에서 용의자의 위치만을 관찰할 뿐이므로 영장이 필요 없다고 대법관들 앞에서 주장했다.

그러나 스티븐 브레이어 대법관은 "당신이 이 사건에서 이기면 모든 미국 시민의 움직임을 하루 24시간 감시하는 것을 그 무엇도 막을 수 없게 된다"며 "당신이 이기면 '1984년'과 비슷한 상황을 만드는 것"이라고 비판했다.

소니아 소토마요르 대법관도 정부 논리대로라면 영장 없이 누군가의 옷에 컴퓨터 칩을 넣어 추적하거나 스마트폰으로 사용자를 추적하는 것도 괜찮다며 우려를 표시했다.

존 로버츠 대법원장도 "당신들이 GPS를 우리 대법관 전원의 차에 부착해 우리 움직임을 한 달 동안 관찰한다면 괜찮나"라며 정부가 이런 방식의 수사 범위를 어디까지 적용할 수 있는지 질문했다.

이에 대해 드리븐 차관보는 "답은 '예스(yes)'"라며 "연방수사국(FBI)은 누구에게나 감시장치를 붙일 수 있다"고 밝혔다.

한편 새뮤얼 앨리토 대법관은 "누군가를 12시간 동안 미행하는 것과 GPS를 써서 12시간 동안 관찰하는 것과 차이가 뭔가"라며 관련 기준을 마련하는 것은 복잡한 문제라고 지적했다.

GPS가 내장된 스마트폰·태블릿PC 등이 일반화되고 있음을 감안하면 이번 판결은 경찰이 영장 없이 스마트폰 사용자를 추적할 수 있을지를 결정하게 된다는 점에서 앞으로 엄청난 영향을 미치게 될 것으로 보여 결과가 주목된다.