Sunday, July 10, 2011

Judge Rules Okay to Track Spouse With GPS

Tracking your spouse by GPS isn't an invasion of privacy, according to a New Jersey appellate court ruling today, clarifying the often gray space between what technology can do and what is legally protected.

Top News

NUTS: Hackers Target Government, Apple and Samsung Continue Battle

The Score: Apple to Share, Zuckerberg Joins Google+

Facebook Code Hints at Music, Spotify Link

Apple Files Patents for Augmented Reality, Transparent Screen

EBay Buys Mobile Payment Provider, to Beef Up PayPal

More News >
The case originated when Kenneth Villanova's wife suspected he was cheating, but the private investigator she hired was unable follow the suspected husband, who is a Gloucester County sheriff's officer.
Reportedly, the investigator suggested the wife put a GPS unit in the car in order to track her husband and find out if he was seeing another woman.
Villanova's wife placed a GPS tracking device in the glove compartment of the car that she jointly owned with her spouse and was then able to follow him -- right onto the driveway of another woman's house.
Villanova complained the action was an invasion of his privacy and sued the private investigator in a 2007 lawsuit. In the first state ruling on the issue, the N.J. appellate Judge Joseph Lisa, Jack Sabatino and Carmen Alvarez decided Villanova he had no right to expect privacy because the GPS tracked his movements on public streets.
"There is no direct evidence in this record to establish that during the approximately 40 days the GPS was in the... glove compartment the device captured a movement of plaintiff into a secluded location that was not in public view, and, if so, that such information was passed along by Mrs. Villanova to Leonard," Lisa wrote.
It was important that it was Villanova's wife, and not the private investigator, who placed the GPS in the car. But other GPS-related cases may expand the issue in other ways.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case involving whether or not law enforcement needs a warrant to install a GPS tracking device on a suspect's car, and this ruling may have important and far-reaching privacy implications.
The case against Washington D.C. nightclub Antoine Jones is being appealed to the nation's highest court because the original conviction was based on data collected from a GPS tracker police installed on his car without a warrant.
Both cases illustrate how the legal system usually catches up with the latest technological advancements with court rulings and decisions that usually reflect society's values, although it does take time.
For the top stories in mobile, follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

No comments:

Post a Comment