Antoine Jones, owner of a Washington nightclub, was suspected of being part of a cocaine selling operation. During an investigation, the FBI placed a GPS tracking device on his car for 28 days without a valid warrant. The FBI used the evidence they gathered to convict him, and he was sentenced to life in prison. The case was appealed, and the conviction was overturned. The Supreme Court agreed with overturning the conviction, saying that the use of GPS tracking devices without a valid warrant violated Jones’ privacy rights.

Because of this decision, police now need to obtain a warrant before using GPS to track suspects. Justice Scalia said that police need to obtain a warrant because of the physical invasion of GPS devices. The main function of the Fourth Amendment is to avoid unreasonable searches and seizures. In the case, the Court found that the U.S. government violated Mr. Jones’ Fourth Amendment rights when it placed a GPS tracking device on his car without his knowledge, and without a valid warrant.

The other judges wrote that we are in an age of technology that is always changing. The idea of physical intrusions could be obsolete in the future because technology is advancing. Justice Sotomayor is especially willing to go much further than simple protection from the physical intrusion. She wrote that not every wireless surveillance will involve a physical interference with property. As wireless technology and cars become more sophisticated, Justice Scalia’s test will become more and more irrelevant.

Although it is illegal for law enforcement to use GPS without a warrant, most states do not have laws regulating the use of GPS devices by individual citizens. Putting a GPS device on a spouse’s car, or hiring an investigator, for example, is widely considered to be legal if the person using it shares ownership of the car. Even if done legally and out of concern for family members, the covert use of GPS devices raises some concerns. GPS trackers are increasingly being cited in cases of criminal stalking and civil violations of privacy. Still, sales of GPS trackers for unregulated uses are growing fast, raising new questions about privacy and a legal system that has not kept up with technology. Although there are looming privacy issues that are unregulated, the Supreme Court’s decision is a good starting point for future privacy protections.

Either way, last week’s Supreme Court decision is a welcomed statement of the constitutional right to privacy in an era of advanced technology.