RICHMOND — Police officers must obtain a warrant before attaching a GPS tracker to a suspect’s car or risk violating that person’s Constitutional rights, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Monday. The decision has an immediate affect on criminal investigations carried out by several law enforcement agencies in Madison County.

A 2009 Richmond Register investigation found the Richmond Police Department and the now-defunct Central Kentucky Area Drug Task Force placed GPS trackers on suspects’ vehicles without a warrant. The drug task force duties have been taken over by the Madison County Sheriff’s Department.

The Supreme Court heard a case in November involving a 2004 police investigation of a man, Antoine Jones, who was suspected of being a cocaine trafficker. Police obtained a warrant to place a GPS tracker on his vehicle within 10 days. However, the officers waited until the 11th day to place the device on the vehicle’s undercarriage, and they did it in Maryland, instead of the District of Columbia where the warrant was issued. This essentially means the GPS tracker was used without a warrant, since the conditions of the judicial order were not followed. Jones’ movements were tracked by the device for 28 days.

Jones eventually was indicted on multiple drug charges, including conspiracy to distribute 5 kilograms of cocaine or more. He was convicted by a jury in 2007 and sentenced to life in prison.

A U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the conviction because of constitutional concerns involving the use of the GPS tracker, and the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court’s docket.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the warrantless use of GPS trackers by the government was in violation of citizens’ Constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The court said “the Government’s physical intrusion on an ‘effect’ (the vehicle) for the purpose of obtaining information constitutes a ‘search.’”

Two other justices wrote concurring opinions, meaning they agreed with the ruling but not the approach to determining the decision. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Samuel Alito Jr. expressed concern that the ruling just dealt with the way the GPS tracker was placed, not with the actual use of the device in a police investigation. They predicted more cases of a similar nature would occur as electronic surveillance technology evolves, and people’s speech and movements are more often recorded.

Local law enforcement response

Richmond Police Chief Larry Brock said via email that the decision by the Supreme Court is “not at all shocking.” In 2009, he told the Richmond Register the department owned GPS tracking devices that were purchased before he became chief in July 2007.

Brock said Tuesday that the trackers have been used since 2009, and warrants were not obtained to place them. They were used in any case that involved long-term surveillance, such as drug trafficking or burglary ring investigations. He said they were helpful in  establishing patterns and supplementing “inadequate manpower supplies.”

“They (U.S. Supreme Court) have decided that the Fourth Amendment applies and law enforcement will adjust,” Brock said.

Brock did not see the requirement to obtain a warrant as a major hindrance in future investigations.

“In cases in which we have utilized GPS trackers, we have established credible evidence beforehand that the target is engaged in criminal activity,” he said. “So I don’t think the requirement to obtain a judicial order will be that big of a deal to us since we have only used them in a small number of cases.”

The Kentucky State Police also has used GPS trackers in certain investigations without first obtaining a warrant, according to Public Affairs Commander Lt. David Jude. Prior to the ruling, troopers would have to get supervisory approval before using a tracker. The trackers are primarily used by the Drug Enforcement/Special Enforcement branch, he said.

“Now that the ruling has been given, we have already begun reviewing our policy so that it can be revised ... ,” Jude said in an email. “Our agency will abide by the ruling and will obtain a warrant prior to use.”

Madison County Sheriff Jerry Combs, who has been in office since January 2011, said his department has a “couple” of GPS trackers in his office.

“They’re very helpful in certain cases,” Combs said. “It’s a really good tool.”

He said he was waiting to see how the Supreme Court would rule on the warrantless use of GPS trackers, noting that law enforcement agents were previously “left in limbo” about its legality.

“We’ll do whatever the law says,” Combs said, adding that protecting the Constitutional rights of Madison County residents is very important to him.

Berea Police Chief David Gregory said his office has not owned or used GPS trackers in investigations.

Courtroom perspective

Madison County Commonwealth’s Attorney David Smith said he has no problem with the Supreme Court’s determination that use of GPS trackers without a warrant is unconstitutional.

“I think they came up with the right decision,” Smith said. Law enforcement should not be unnecessarily hampered in their investigations, but people also don’t expect their movements to be monitored 24 hours a day, he said.

Smith did not think the ruling would affect any of the cases he currently is prosecuting in Madison Circuit Court. However, he acknowledged that police did not regularly inform his office when GPS tracking was used in an investigation.

Brock said there has not been a “requirement, law or local rule” that required officers to inform prosecutors of devices used in a criminal case. He added that a number of investigative tools and techniques are used every day that police are not required to tell prosecutors about.

Local defense attorney Jim Baechtold said the ruling may affect pending criminal cases in which he represents the accused. Now that a warrant has to be obtained through a judge’s order, information about the use of a GPS tracker will be in each defendant’s judicial file.

“The defendant has a right to know,” Baechtold said. “It’s such a small burden for law enforcement officers to get a search warrant anyway.”

Baechtold didn’t think that the ruling would have a major affect on police work in Madison County or across the nation.

“I’ll be surprised if it slows down law enforcement in their drug interdiction efforts,” he said.

Another Madison County defense attorney, Wes Browne, applauded the ruling as a victory for the rights of everyone. Without a warrant, an agency could place a tracker on any vehicle for any reason “without consequence,” he said.

“No single entity in our government should have that kind of unchecked power,” Browne said.

“It’s unfortunate that (GPS trackers) were used without warrants in Madison County, but the debate’s over. You can’t do it,” he said.

Sarah Hogsed can be reached at shogsed@richmondregister.com or 624-6694.