NCJ Number
99727
Journal
Catholic University Law Review Volume: 34 Issue: 2 Dated: (Winter 1985) Pages: 277-395
Date Published
1985
Length
119 pages
Annotation
This article examines the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in 'Knotts' and 'Karo' (pertaining to the constitutional uses of electronic surveillance), analyzes questions left unanswered by these decisions regarding the use of electronic tracking devices, and outlines legislation to resolve these issues.
Abstract
In 'Knotts' (1983) and 'Karo' (1984), the Court declined to categorize as either a search or a seizure those aspects of beeper surveillance that do no more than assist police in monitoring public conduct. The 'Karo' decision, however, insisted that investigators obtain a warrant when a beeper is used to intrude into a private location. Neither case required the Court to consider whether trespassory installation of a beeper constitutes a search or seizure. The most important question left unanswered by these decisions is whether a warrant authorizing private-location monitoring must be based upon probable cause (as traditional search warrants must be) or the less demanding standard of reasonable suspicion. The interests of effective law enforcement and individual privacy can best be balanced through legislation providing comprehensive standards for such surveillance and requiring reasonable suspicion as the legal prerequisite for a warrant to place a beeper in a private location. A total of 488 footnotes are provided.