Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

San Francisco Should Stop Sharing the Ankle Monitor Data of Suspects on Pretrial Release

by May 30, 2024
May 30, 2024
San Francisco Should Stop Sharing the Ankle Monitor Data of Suspects on Pretrial Release

Thomas A. Berry and Brent Skorup

Law enforcement officials around the country increasingly pressure criminal suspects, after arrest, to submit to continuous real‐​time location tracking. This invasive pretrial release monitoring practice is typically accomplished by attaching a GPS device to a suspect’s ankle. Prosecutors have defended location tracking as a beneficial alternative to keeping high‐​risk suspects in jail in the weeks and months between arrest and trial.

The City and County of San Francisco is one jurisdiction that uses such electronic monitoring. However, the county does not limit the use of its location tracking data solely to its own jurisdiction. Among the conditions the county sheriff enforces, suspects who accept electronic monitoring must also allow the sheriff to capture and share their location information with other law enforcement agencies across the country.

Three men who were charged with criminal offenses and subjected to San Francisco’s electronic monitoring for months objected to these surveillance and data‐​sharing conditions. They sued, alleging violations of their Fourth Amendment rights. And in February 2024, a federal court granted their request for a preliminary injunction and prevented the sheriff from sharing the GPS tracking information of any suspect in the pretrial monitoring program.

The government appealed to the Ninth Circuit in Simon v. San Francisco, asking it to reverse the lower court’s decision and reinstate the GPS monitoring program and conditions. Now Cato has filed an amicus brief, joining the Electronic Frontier Foundation and law professor Kate Weisburd to urge the Ninth Circuit to affirm the lower court’s decision.

The Fourth Amendment protects Americans’ right to be free from unreasonable searches. As our brief explains, people on pretrial release have not been convicted of a crime and do not relinquish their reasonable expectation of privacy in their location and movements. Location data reveal sensitive and private information about people, such as their movement within their own home or their visits to a doctor’s office, union hall, or house of worship. Therefore, the use and sharing of that location data must be strictly limited.

Our brief shows that there are two major Fourth Amendment problems with the sheriff’s electronic monitoring program. First, the sheriff shares comprehensive geolocation data with other agencies in a way that violates the program participants’ reasonable expectation of privacy. Second, the sheriff performs and shares the results of reverse location searches that reveal which program participants were in a particular location during a designated period. These reverse location searches are constitutionally deficient because they are not sufficiently particularized and are akin to the general warrants that the Fourth Amendment was intended to prohibit.

Our brief highlights these constitutional problems with San Francisco’s pretrial release monitoring program and urges the Ninth Circuit to affirm the district court’s decision granting the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Republican mega-donor to bankroll pro-Trump super PAC in 2024 rematch with Biden
next post
Speech Codes and Commissions Trample on the Expressive Rights of Canadians, Australians, and All Users of the Internet

You may also like

The Latest International Exam Scores Look Bad—Are They?

December 4, 2024

Government Debt Varies Widely by State

July 19, 2024

11 Charts Showing How Canada/Mexico Tariffs Would Harm...

February 28, 2025

Clarifying the Possibility of a Contingent Election under...

October 20, 2024

What Trump Has Done and Imminently Plans to...

February 3, 2025

Friday Feature: Navigate School Choice

October 25, 2024

Biden Is Once Again Being “Generous” to Student...

July 31, 2023

Two Years of Sounding the Alarm: Reflections and...

August 12, 2024

Making Medicine Cost More Won’t Make America Healthy...

April 14, 2025

How “Temporary” Emergency Spending Bloats the Federal Budget...

September 25, 2024

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Chief Justice Roberts sounds alarm on dangerous rhetoric aimed at judges from politicians

      June 29, 2025
    • Britain’s fastest-growing firms revealed for 2025: Dfyne, Nala’s Baby and Hawkstone lead the charge

      June 29, 2025
    • Schumer to force Senate reading of Trump’s entire ‘big, beautiful bill’

      June 28, 2025
    • Rubio condemns Iran’s ‘unacceptable’ threats against IAEA director

      June 28, 2025
    • Key blue state Republican says Senate’s local tax write-off offer is a ‘good deal’

      June 28, 2025
    • Key GOP senator defects on crucial vote, imperiling Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ in narrow majority

      June 28, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,330)
    • Investing (2,081)
    • Politics (15,852)
    • Stocks (3,177)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved