{"id":11789,"date":"2018-03-17T13:23:02","date_gmt":"2018-03-17T18:23:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/?p=11789"},"modified":"2018-03-17T13:23:02","modified_gmt":"2018-03-17T18:23:02","slug":"the-constitutionality-of-launching-sticky-gps-darts-during-a-high-speed-car-chase","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/2018\/03\/17\/the-constitutionality-of-launching-sticky-gps-darts-during-a-high-speed-car-chase\/","title":{"rendered":"The Constitutionality of Launching Sticky GPS Darts During a High-Speed Car Chase"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
Photo Credit: Starchase.com<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

By Amy Kerlin, Staff Writer<\/strong><\/p>\n

On the multiple occasions that the United States Supreme Court opined about vehicles and the Fourth Amendment, it considered competing policy interests like officer safety or an individual\u2019s privacy rights.\u00a0 These frequently clashing policy interests come to the forefront in the realm of high-speed pursuit cases with the recent popularity of the StarChase GPS launcher.[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

A StarChase GPS launcher is mounted on the front of a patrol car and can release a GPS dart that adheres to a fleeing motorist\u2019s car during a high-speed chase.[2]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 The darts are four-and-a-half inch projectiles coated in adhesive.[3]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 The GPS dart provides real-time location tracking to allow for officers to stop pursuing the fleeing car but continue tracking the suspect.[4]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 The technology provides a safer way to locate suspects that flee the scene or are involved in a high-speed chase by simply taking the chase out of the apprehension.<\/p>\n

Many police departments across the country have implemented this technology to eliminate high-speed chases.[5]<\/sup><\/a> \u00a0A report released by the National Institute of Justice in partnership with StarChase, LLC, revealed that more than 55,000 injuries occur per year and more than 360 officer and civilian fatalities occur per year because of high-speed pursuits.[6]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 The report analyzed various test cases of the use of the StarChase GPS launcher.\u00a0 The ultimate conclusions of the test cases in the report illustrated zero injuries and zero fatalities from high-speed chases after implementation of the GPS launcher.[7]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The GPS darts raise the question of constitutionality in light of a 2012 decision by the United States Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

In U.S. v. Jones<\/em>, the U.S. Supreme Court held that attaching a GPS tracker to an individual\u2019s car and using that tracker to monitor the individual\u2019s movement constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment.[8]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Notably, the Court cited that a vehicle was an \u201ceffect\u201d within the Fourth Amendment\u2019s \u201c\u2018right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects<\/em>, against unreasonable searches and seizures.\u2019\u201d[9]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Thus, the Court determined that attaching a GPS device in order to track the individual\u2019s movement was a search.<\/p>\n

Importantly, the Court defined this type of governmental action as \u201c[t]he Government physically occup[ying] private property for the purpose of obtaining information.\u201d[10]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 The GPS tracker \u201coccupied\u201d the vehicle of a private individual with the purpose of tracking that individual.\u00a0 Without a warrant, this occupation of the individual\u2019s private property violated the Fourth Amendment.<\/p>\n

Interestingly, StarChase released a statement in 2015 regarding U.S. v. Jones<\/em> and its determination that the StarChase technology is constitutional when properly used.\u00a0 StarChase noted that the U.S. v. Jones<\/em> Court \u201cleft open the possibility that use of a GPS tracking device on an automobile may still be a reasonable search in some circumstances, such as immediately after the commission of a crime.\u201d[11]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 StarChase stated that when the GPS launcher is properly used \u2013 when officers have probable cause that the fleeing vehicle is being used in the commission of a crime or attempted flight \u2013 the GPS launcher and tracking system is constitutional.[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

StarChase is likely correct in its statement regarding the permissible use of the GPS launcher technology.\u00a0 Because of the importance of officer safety, as well as the safety of the surrounding public, the use of the GPS launcher to eliminate the dangers of high-speed chases is likely constitutional.<\/p>\n

An earlier U.S. Supreme Court case, Scott v. Harris<\/em>, sheds some light on the reasonableness of an officer\u2019s actions during a high-speed chase.\u00a0 In that case, the Court held that an officer\u2019s attempt to end a dangerous high-speed chase that threatened the lives of bystanders did not violate the Fourth Amendment even though it placed the fleeing suspect at risk of serious injury or death.[13]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

In Scott<\/em>, the officer applied his push bumper to the rear of the fleeing suspect which caused the suspect to drive off the road and crash.\u00a0 The fleeing motorist\u2019s injuries ultimately caused him to become a quadriplegic.\u00a0 In coming to its holding, the Court placed significant weight on the interest in ensuring that officers and innocent bystanders are safe from the dangers of a high-speed pursuit.\u00a0 Given the Court\u2019s emphasis on that interest, as well as the GPS launcher\u2019s efficacy in attaining low injury and fatality rates, it is likely that the use of the GPS launcher technology is constitutional because the technology ameliorates the dangers of a high-speed pursuit.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sources<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

[1]<\/a>\u00a0Products<\/em>, StarChase, (last visited March 12, 2018), https:\/\/www.starchase.com\/ products.php#panel2-1.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> StarChase Pursuit Management System \u2013 How It Works<\/em>, June 2, 2011, (last visited March 12, 2018), https:\/\/www.policeone.com\/police-products\/Pursuit-Management-Technology\/videos\/5955963-StarChase-Pursuit-Management-System-How-It-Works\/.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Cops\u2019 Latest Tool in High-Speed Chases: GPS Projectiles<\/em>, CBS News, May 16, 2016, https:\/\/www.cbsnews.com\/news\/police-test-gps-tracking-bullets-high-speed-chase-starchase\/.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Simple to Operate<\/em>, (last visited March 12, 2018), http:\/\/www.starchase.com\/technology.php.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a>\u00a0Mary Beth Quirk, Police Using GPS \u2018Darts\u2019 To Track Suspects, Prevent Dangerous High-Speed Chases<\/em>, April 10, 2017, (\u201cAgencies in more than 30 states are now using the darts.\u201d).<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a>\u00a0Trevor A. Fischbach, Keo Hadsdy, & Amanda McCall, Pursuit Management: Fleeing Vehicle Tagging and Tracking Technology<\/em>, Oct. 31, 2013, https:\/\/www.ncjrs.gov\/pdffiles1\/nij\/grants\/249156.pdf.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> U.S. v. Jones<\/em>, 565 U.S. 400 (2012).<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at 404 (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted).<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> StarChase Statement on the Supreme Court Ruling in United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. (2012)<\/em>, StarChase, Dec. 17, 2015, http:\/\/www.starchase.com\/press\/news\/supreme-court-ruling.php.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> Scott v. Harris<\/em>, 550 U.S. 372 (2007).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Amy Kerlin, Staff Writer On the multiple occasions that the United States Supreme Court opined about vehicles and the Fourth Amendment, it considered competing policy interests like officer safety or an individual\u2019s privacy rights.\u00a0 These frequently clashing policy interests come to the forefront in the realm of high-speed pursuit [\u2026] <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,4],"tags":[1991,975,2215,2214,2213,2211,2212,2216],"class_list":["post-11789","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-juris-blog","category-posts","tag-amy-kerlin","tag-fourth-amendment","tag-gps-dart-launcher","tag-privacy-vs-public-safety","tag-scott-v-harris","tag-starchase","tag-sticky-gps-darts","tag-us-v-jones"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11789","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11789"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11789\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11797,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11789\/revisions\/11797"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11789"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11789"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11789"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}