GPS Location Privacy

This page provides information about U.S. judicial rulings, legislation, and federal policies concerning GPS and personal privacy. It is not intended to influence or express opinions on any ongoing legal deliberations.

The government's GPS satellites are one-way beacons that cannot track you or anything on the ground. But commercially available GPS devices with communication or recording features can help users keep track of everything from vehicles and cargo to people and animals.

The use of GPS technology to covertly monitor suspects, employees, customers, and other people raises questions about individual privacy rights. Several lawsuits and legislative actions have sought to address these questions, but much remains unresolved today.

Judicial Rulings

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants Americans certain privacy rights by protecting them from "unreasonable searches and seizures" and by requiring search warrants to be based on "probable cause." View text

As of October 2018, it remains unclear whether the extended use of GPS technology to track suspects without a warrant violates their Fourth Amendment rights.

Supreme Court

Statue of Justice outside Supreme Court building

In January 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement must obtain a warrant before physically attaching a GPS tracking device to a suspect's vehicle. The decision (United States v. Antoine Jones) was based on a narrow application of the Fourth Amendment, since device installation involves physical intrusion on a suspect's vehicle. The Supreme Court did not resolve the broader issue of whether the Fourth Amendment protects geolocation privacy rights.

Since the Jones decision, the Supreme Court has issued the following additional rulings relating to cellphone location history privacy, but these do not address the issue of live GPS tracking:

Carpenter v. United States (No. 16-402)
June 2018: The Supreme Court held that law enforcement must obtain a search warrant supported by probable cause in order to obtain at least seven days of historic cell-site location information associated with a suspect's cell phone. The decision extended the expectation of privacy in one's physical location and movements, afforded by the Fourth Amendment and as articulated in United States v. Jones, to include cell-site location information held by cell phone service providers. It did not, however, address GPS tracking or other forms of geolocation including "other business records that might incidentally reveal location information." View PDF
Riley v. California (No. 13-132)
June 2014: The Supreme Court ruled that police need a warrant before searching the contents of a suspect's cell phone. The opinion specifically discusses the location history stored inside a phone (often collected automatically via GPS) as an example of personal information deserving protection from unwarranted disclosure. View PDF

Lower Courts

A number of other federal and state courts have ruled on the use of GPS-based vehicle surveillance by law enforcement, both before and after the 2012 Supreme Court decision. However, several of the lower court opinions are in conflict, so the Supreme Court may need to revisit this topic in the future.

Revelant decisions issued after United States v. Jones include:

United States v. Katzin (No. 12-2548)
Oct 2014: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, upon rehearing the case, ruled as admissible GPS evidence collected without a warrant prior to the 2012 Supreme Court ruling. View PDF
United States v. Katzin (No. 12-2548)
Oct 2013: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that law enforcement must have a warrant to use GPS-based vehicle trackers. But the court later vacated its ruling and agreed to rehear the case. View PDF
Commonwealth v. Rousseau & Dreslinski (SJC-11227, SJC-11228)
June 2013: The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that vehicle occupants have legal standing under federal and state law to challenge the sufficiency of warrants that authorize GPS-based vehicle surveillance. Look up opinion at massreports.com
United States v. Skinner (No. 09-6497)
Aug 2012: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that law enforcement did not violate a suspect's Fourth Amendment rights by tracking his movements on public roads in real time using his cell phone's GPS capability after obtaining a federal judge's authority to do so. View PDF
United States v. Pineda-Moreno (No. 08-30385)
Aug 2012: The Supreme Court ordered this case to be reconsidered in light of the Jones decision. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its 2010 ruling that installing a GPS tracker on a vehicle parked in the defendant's driveway without a warrant did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. View PDF

Congressional Legislation

Several U.S. states and non-U.S. jurisdictions have enacted laws establishing personal location privacy rights. However, current U.S. statute at the federal level does not provide clear protection of geolocation information.

Members of Congress have proposed legislation to prevent misuse of such information by law enforcement, companies, and individuals. However, as of October 2018, no comprehensive legislation on geolocation privacy has been enacted into law.

Governance: