{"id":3163,"date":"2014-10-30T20:19:20","date_gmt":"2014-10-30T20:19:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=3163"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:53:40","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:53:40","slug":"follow-up-with-stalkers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/follow-up-with-stalkers\/","title":{"rendered":"Follow Up With Stalkers"},"content":{"rendered":"

A New York state law going into effect this Tuesday criminalizes the use of GPS devices by individuals to stalk<\/a> one another. To clarify, \u201csuch conduct becomes a misdemeanor only after the target notifies the person responsible that such conduct is unwelcome.\u201d That\u2019s right. New Yorkers will soon be beginning their conversations by saying \u2018before we start anything, you should know that I don\u2019t <\/em>want you to be able to track my every movement.\u2019 As silly as this may sound, attorney Casey Jordan of Tully Rickney warns<\/a> that \u201cif the person was not aware of it and didn\u2019t demand it be removed, (using a GPS) would still be legal. \u201d
\nThe new law is in response to the murder of Jackie Wisnewski<\/a> in 2012 by her ex-boyfriend Dr. Timothy Jorden. Following Wisnewski\u2019s death, police discovered the GPS installed by Jorden on Wisnewski\u2019s car and used to locate her on the day of the murder. Police were previously unable to bring charges against Jorden, although Wisnewski had in fact discovered the GPS before her death. Jackie\u2019s Law<\/a>, as it is being called, \u201cmakes that type of stalking a misdemeanor \u2013 provided the person being tracked makes it clear being electronically followed is unwelcome.\u201d
\nJackie\u2019s Law is thought by advocates to be a necessary improvement upon existing domestic violence law<\/a>. Supporters point to statistics saying \u201cone in four stalking cases nationwide involve some type of tracking technology . . . . \u2018Many of these cases involve domestic violence, and it is vitally important that victims of domestic violence are protected from such tracking.\u2019\u201d However, civilian GPS tracking extends to political opponents<\/a> monitoring one another.
\nUnited States Senator for New York, Chuck Schumer, hopes to criminalize such civilian GPS stalking nationally. Under the proposed bill<\/a>, \u201ccovert use of GPS trackers would be illegal except for use by law enforcement officials, parents of minors, and in specific cases of patients suffering from dementia or similar diagnoses.\u201d
\nHowever, such constant monitoring even by law enforcement has been the subject of recent debate. In 2012, the Supreme Court in US v. Jones<\/em> warned against<\/a> \u201cthe use of longer term GPS monitoring . . . imping[ing] on expectations of privacy.\u201d More recently, advanced license plate recognition technology systems<\/a>, \u201ccreat[ing] a network of extra eyes [that] can . . . keep a community, city or sensitive area safe,\u201d has been the subject 4th Amendment privacy discussions.
\nAgain, Jackie\u2019s Law still requires that monitored persons make their followers aware that they do not want to be tracked in order for law enforcement to file stalking charges. It does not require that GPS installers notify their subjects. What I want to know is, who are the people fully aware of and welcoming<\/em> this sort of constant monitoring? Moreover, if we are uncomfortable with potential loved ones to have access to this amount of information, why are we comfortable with law enforcement having access to our every move?
\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A New York state law going into effect this Tuesday criminalizes the use of GPS devices by individuals to stalk one another. To clarify, \u201csuch conduct becomes a misdemeanor only after the target notifies the person responsible that such conduct is unwelcome.\u201d That\u2019s right. New Yorkers will soon be beginning their conversations by saying \u2018before …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3163"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3163"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3163\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7407,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3163\/revisions\/7407"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3163"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3163"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3163"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}