Need to obtain warrant for GPS tracking sensible

Whether it is an issue of an improper search or a privacy violation, a majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices agree there are boundaries to how police can track criminal suspects.

The court has ruled that police who want to use GPS technology for long-term monitoring of the movements of suspects must first obtain a warrant to do so from a judge, just as they would have to obtain a warrant to wiretap an individual to monitor their conversations.

It was a ruling anxiously awaited by both law enforcement authorities and civil libertarians.

Police who placed a GPS unit on a drug suspect's vehicle and monitored his movements for a month had argued that it was like following him around in a vehicle — which does not require a warrant.

Civil libertarians argued that the GPS surveillance was more invasive and in fact violated the Constitution's prohibition against searches without a warrant.

Five of the nine justices agreed it was illegal without a warrant, some of them because of the searches issue and some because it violated constraints on privacy rights.

It was a blow for law enforcement authorities who had hoped to take advantage of high tech surveillance methods without having to deal with the potentially cumbersome need to obtain warrants.

It was nevertheless a correct decision.

The intention of the writers of the nation's Constitution was that Americans would be protected from improper intrusions into their lives by government authorities. And the ability to secretly and remotely monitor the movements of an individual is certainly intrusive.

It makes sense that such an intrusion should first be approved by a judge to help ensure it is truly justified.