Next time you’re getting into your car, you might want to take a look underneath for a GPS tracking unit. Seem like something out a spy film? That’s probably what ran through the mind of Yassir Afifi, a 20 year-old student from Santa Clara, California, several days ago. He found such a device underneath his car during an oil change of his vehicle. After removing the device he posted pictures of the equipment on the internet and a short time later, an FBI agent arrived at his door and asked for the equipment back. While the FBI acknowledged there was an “ongoing investigation” concerning Afifi, this raises questions concerning government tracking of citizens.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (which covers nine western states including California) has ruled that, concerning tracking equipment, the government can do so without a warrant. However, in a contrasting opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled, in August of this year, that the government cannot track an individual without a warrant, and doing so constitutes an invasion of privacy.

Interestingly enough, one of the chief factors concerning legality seems to be the amount of time one is tracked. The ruling by the District of Columbia Circuit said the tracking the “whole of a person’s movements over the course of a month” is a violation of privacy. This is in apparent disagreement with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, United States v. Knotts, in which the court decided (nearly 30 years ago) that individuals can be tracked for a limited amount of time, on the basis the right to privacy decreases on public roads. After a quick glance, one would assume from comparing the rulings that the time frame of four weeks seems to be magic number concerning what is legal and what is illegal.

As this issue comes to the forefront of political discourse during these times of increasing public distrust of the government, the question concerning the legality of tracking individuals seems to be focused on semantics. This isn’t a new concept to law students or practicing attorneys, but the fact it isn’t new doesn’t mean it is any less interesting or important. So the next time you hear this issue take the stage, take a minute to think about the arguments concerning tools in crime prevention, the public good and invasion of privacy. Oh, and maybe look under your car, too.

Read the full article HERE.