Is location tracking constitutional?

The age of technology has assuredly found its way to the U.S. court system. Texas residents may believe that privacy is vital in American life and that it is easy to invade individual privacy when technology is at its present intrusive state. Court judges are also aware of this problem, especially when geographical location is a component of issuing a warrant.

Dilemma for judges

The Constitution is a contract between the common people and the authorities that authorities will not interfere in the lives of the people without due cause. The primary problem with geofencing warrants is that they are intended for one particular person or group, but they could reveal significant information about seemingly law-abiding individuals. The primary element of due clause is “particularity” in issuing a warrant to police officers who could easily abuse the power to arrest without cause.

Sweeping up general information

Constitutional rights can be used in criminal defense situations when police officers do not respect these rights. Officers might want an arrest even if the wrong person is arrested. Using location tracking may be an example of when constitutionally protected personal activity essentially becomes unduly monitored by authorities.

Defending cases on constitutional grounds

The whole purpose of the U.S. Constitution is keeping government agencies honest when conducting arrests and not abusing their power to investigate before apprehension. Criminal defense attorneys in Texas understand this potential application. Lawyers may not only use Constitutional grounds as a criminal defense but also file damage suits against government agencies for wrongful arrest. Issuing geofence warrants can easily result in these legal actions for a person who has been wrongfully arrested based on location data.