In criminal trials, GPS data has become a critical tool for proving guilt or establishing innocence. From tracking a suspect’s vehicle to creating timelines with mobile devices, courts increasingly rely on GPS data to build airtight cases. But how do you ensure that the information is accurate, legally obtained, and fairly presented?
In this article, we spoke with the experts at SpaceHawk GPS to dive into the role of GPS tracking in criminal trials. You’ll learn how courts use GPS evidence, explore key legal precedents like United States v. Jones, and uncover the legal challenges tied to accuracy and privacy. Along the way, we’ll explain what makes GPS data admissible and how evolving laws are shaping the future of tracking technology in courtrooms.
Let’s take a closer look at how GPS data helps ensure justice—while raising complex questions about privacy, consent, and the balance between security and civil rights.
What is GPS Data and How Can It Be Used as Evidence?
GPS data shows the real-time location and movements of people, vehicles, or assets by using signals from satellites to GPS-enabled devices. In fact, a GPS tracker logs coordinates, speed, and timestamps, which can play a big role in criminal trials. Whether it’s a tracker on a car or a fitness watch on someone’s wrist, GPS data gives a detailed look into where someone has been.
Types of GPS Evidence
Courts use a few different types of GPS data:
Personal GPS Trackers: These trackers can be attached to vehicles—sometimes without the owner even knowing—or worn by individuals. For example, a tracker installed without permission might become evidence in a stalking case, showing that someone followed another person without their consent.
GPS-Enabled Devices: Phones, fitness watches, and other mobile gadgets collect location data regularly. In criminal cases, these logs can help create a timeline or place suspects at specific locations.
Fleet Vehicles and Business Data: Companies use GPS to manage their vehicles, and this data can also become evidence. Fleet tracking can confirm if employees were where they were supposed to be, but businesses have to follow laws around employee tracking to avoid breaking privacy rules. In fact, many employers have used products like the SpaceHawk mini GPS tracker to catch problem employees,
Chain of Custody and Data Integrity
For GPS data to hold up in court, the data must be handled carefully from the moment it’s collected to when it’s presented. This process—called chain of custody—helps ensure the data hasn’t been tampered with. Whether pulling data from a GPS device or downloading movement logs from an app, each step has to be documented to keep the evidence credible.
Admissibility of GPS Data in Court
Courts only accept GPS data if it’s collected legally. This often means getting proper consent or, in some cases, a warrant. For example, police usually need a warrant to install a tracker on a personal vehicle during a stalking investigation. If the data is collected without permission or a warrant, it may not be allowed in court, since privacy laws protect against unauthorized tracking.
Context matters too. Business GPS data, like tracking fleet vehicles, might be valid if used to confirm employee movements. But companies must follow monitoring laws to avoid issues, like tracking vehicles without an owner’s consent. Courts look at all these factors when deciding if GPS data can be used to support a case.
Key Legal Precedents Involving GPS Data
Several landmark cases have shaped how courts handle GPS data in criminal investigations. These cases highlight the importance of obtaining warrants and respecting privacy while illustrating how GPS evidence can influence trial outcomes.
United States v. Jones (2012)
In United States v. Jones, the FBI attached a GPS tracker to a suspect’s vehicle without a warrant to monitor his movements. The tracker provided location data over 28 days, revealing the suspect’s activities related to drug trafficking.
Outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that placing a GPS tracker without a warrant violated the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights. The decision emphasized that tracking someone’s vehicle constitutes a search, which requires judicial approval.
Impact: This case set a critical precedent, limiting law enforcement’s ability to conduct warrantless GPS tracking. It established that using tracking devices to monitor personal movements without proper authorization breaches privacy protections.
Commonwealth v. Rousseau (2014)
In this Massachusetts case, police used GPS data from a suspect’s phone to tie him to a murder. Investigators accessed the suspect’s location data without first obtaining a warrant.
Outcome: The Massachusetts court ruled that law enforcement must have a warrant to access GPS tracking data from a phone. This decision reinforced privacy protections, even when data is collected by mobile tracking devices, like phones or GPS apps.
Impact: This ruling underscored the principle that electronic surveillance of personal devices requires judicial oversight, ensuring that police cannot track a person’s location or movements without authorization.
People v. Xiong (2020)
In People v. Xiong, GPS data became a key piece of evidence in convicting the suspect. Law enforcement used data from a tracking device to establish the suspect’s movements near the crime scene.
Outcome: The GPS data built a precise timeline, showing the suspect’s proximity to key locations at critical times. This contributed to the conviction.
Impact: This case demonstrated how GPS tracking systems can play a vital role in criminal investigations by creating timelines that link suspects to specific events. It showed how fleet vehicles or personal trackers could provide crucial evidence when lawfully obtained.
Together, these cases highlight the balance between privacy protections and law enforcement’s use of GPS technology. Courts now require stricter adherence to privacy laws, ensuring that tracking devices are only used within legal limits to avoid violating constitutional rights.
Legal Challenges with GPS Evidence
GPS tracking data can provide valuable insights in criminal trials, but it also comes with legal hurdles. Courts need to make sure the data is accurate, reliable, and collected properly to ensure it’s fair and valid.
Accuracy and Reliability
GPS data isn’t always perfect. Signals can get thrown off by tall buildings, tunnels, or bad weather. Sometimes, the devices glitch, or someone might try GPS spoofing to manipulate the location. That’s why courts often rely on expert witnesses to confirm the data’s reliability and point out any potential inaccuracies. Judges also want to know exactly how the tracker collected the data and whether any errors could have affected the outcome. Why? Because there are incidents when GPS tracking can be wrong.
Privacy Concerns
Tracking someone without their knowledge brings up serious privacy issues, especially in private spaces like homes or personal vehicles. Courts often have to decide whether tracking someone without consent crosses the line into a privacy violation. The key is where the tracking happened—public areas don’t usually trigger privacy protections, but monitoring someone in private spaces can be seen as stalking or breaking anti-stalking laws. Cases involving personal vehicles without the owner’s consent show the limits of legal surveillance and the importance of following the rules.
Chain of Custody Issues
For GPS tracking data to hold up in court, it has to be handled correctly from start to finish. If the data gets altered, lost, or stored improperly, it may be thrown out. Courts look closely at how the data was collected, who accessed it, and whether it stayed intact all the way through. Keeping an unbroken chain of custody builds trust in the data and makes it more likely to be accepted as evidence. Any gap in the process can lead to challenges, so law enforcement and businesses must follow strict procedures when collecting GPS data.
Final Thoughts
GPS data plays a key role in criminal trials by helping create accurate timelines and uncovering the truth. Whether it comes from vehicles, personal trackers, or mobile devices, GPS evidence can confirm involvement in a crime or prove innocence. However, its use also raises legal questions. Courts must balance the benefits of tracking data with the need to protect privacy and ensure law enforcement follows warrant requirements.
Challenges like signal interference, GPS spoofing, tampering, and chain of custody issues highlight the importance of handling this data carefully. As tracking technology evolves, courts will continue refining laws to prevent misuse and protect privacy. It’s critical that all GPS data introduced in trials is accurate, reliable, and legally obtained to maintain public trust.
Experts expect GPS tracking to become even more common in investigations and trials, especially with business tools like fleet management systems providing crucial evidence. But the laws surrounding unauthorized tracking will also evolve to stop misuse for stalking or illegal surveillance.
When handled responsibly and with respect for privacy, GPS data ensures justice by convicting the guilty and protecting the innocent. The future of GPS tracking in court will depend on maintaining this balance, ensuring the evidence is credible and used ethically in every case.
