High-Tech Anti-Crime Tools Raise Civil Rights Debate

Imagine that police could tail drug dealers without the risk of being seen, that detectives tracking a pedophile could monitor his every move from the comfort of the squad room. Imagine that an FBI agent, standing 60 feet from a bank robber, could use a hand-held scanner to determine whether he was armed--and with what.

Sound like science fiction? Not at all. Such high-tech tools are either within the arsenal of law enforcement now or will be soon.

For crime fighters, they mean enhanced safety and a fresh tactical advantage in the war against bad guys. For civil libertarians, this new generation of sophisticated devices is alarmingly invasive, representing a threat to privacy rights and an invitation for abuse.

It is a familiar standoff. And in California, the newest phase of the battle--how, or whether, to regulate technology’s latest gifts to law enforcement--is now underway in the capital.

Two legislators have taken aim at electronic tracking devices that allow police to monitor a car’s movements from afar, while a third wants to govern the use of weapons scanners, which are under development and could be standard issue within a few years.

The latter bill, by Assemblyman Wally Knox (D-Los Angeles), is on hold until next session. But the legislation targeting electronic tracking is expected to be approved by legislators despite a swarm of opponents in law enforcement.

Electronic tracking devices--or ETDs--are transmitters the size of a videocassette that can be magnetically attached to a car’s undercarriage or concealed inside. Some are battery powered; others are wired to a car’s electrical system. By sending a signal to a radio tower, the devices enable police to track a vehicle’s movements on a computerized street map at a police station.

The tracking devices have been most heavily used by businesses and utilities to monitor delivery trucks and repair crews. But they are now in hot demand among law enforcement officials, who say the devices can be invaluable, particularly in narcotics cases, kidnappings and auto thefts.

In Los Angeles County, the Sheriff’s Department and myriad police agencies use them. Supplied by a Kansas City-based company called Teletrac, they cost about $600 each, plus $2,000 for the software needed to monitor a car.

“Without [the tracking devices], some of the big cases we’ve worked in the last several years would have been very, very difficult,” said Capt. Dan Koenig, head of the LAPD’s detective support division. Koenig would not disclose specifics, but said electronic tracking had been “extremely beneficial” in cracking kidnappings.

“In those cases, you have to be able to monitor suspects’ movements from far away, so they won’t know you’re watching,” Koenig said. “Otherwise, they may execute the hostage” before a rescue can occur.

The devices have also been instrumental in solving major auto theft cases, said Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Capt. John Bryan. He said detectives often plant a “bait car” equipped with a device, wait for it to be stolen and then track it--either to a warehouse full of other stolen vehicles awaiting export or to a “chop shop” of pilfered car parts.

“It’s been a big help,” said Bryan, director of a regional auto theft task force in Los Angeles County.

Critics do not quarrel with the benefits of electronic tracking. But they argue that the unfettered, secretive use of the devices threatens the privacy rights of the innocent.

State Sens. John Burton (D-San Francisco) and Ross Johnson (R-Irvine) share that view. The unlikely duo--who rarely agree on much--are co-sponsoring legislation requiring police to obtain a court order before using electronic trackers. The bill also would ban their civilian use without the consent of the person being tracked.

Burton’s link to the issue is not surprising, given his liberal credentials. But the conservative Johnson’s involvement has raised eyebrows and irked police agencies who usually call him an ally.

Johnson conceded that police opposition to his bill is tough to stomach. But he said his worries about potential abuse of the technology persuaded him to team up with Burton.

“We both believe that in a free democratic society this is a dangerous notion, that government has a right to spy on you without a minimal level of oversight,” Johnson said.

Although he is unaware of any cases of police abuse of the technology--tracking motorists randomly with no legitimate purpose, for example--Burton said the potential exists.

“You could have one on your car right now,” Burton said. “We’re trying to make sure they use it when they have just cause to believe someone has committed a crime.”

The bill sailed through the Assembly and is now awaiting a final vote in the Senate, where passage is expected. Gov. Pete Wilson has yet to take a position on the bill, but reportedly has qualms about it.

“It appears that this bill wants to give enhanced protections to drug dealers--beyond what’s required under the Constitution,” said Wilson’s spokesman, Sean Walsh. “We’ve got some serious questions about that.”

Among the bill’s supporters are two assemblymen whose former careers were in law enforcement--George House (R-Hughson) and Larry Bowler (R-Elk Grove). House called requiring a court order “a minor inconvenience.”

“I also think it will make officers take careful note of what they’re doing, and be more conscientious,” said House.

The American Civil Liberties Union and an alliance of criminal defense attorneys agree. “It’s shocking that police can just go up to your car, quietly stick one of these things underneath and make you a blip on their computer screen,” said Katherine Sher, lobbyist for California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. “Is it being abused? How can we tell?”

Law enforcement officials say the senators and their supporters are being unduly alarmist. They have argued that tracking devices are used only on the cars of criminal suspects and that they protect the public and officers from the hazards of high-speed pursuits.

“We understand the concern about law enforcement running rampant with no checks and balances, but this [bill] would add yet another restriction hindering our ability to do the job,” said Lt. Dennis Werner of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Werner, like others, complained that the time required to obtain a court order could jeopardize cases demanding quick intervention.

In response to such concerns, Burton amended the bill to permit the emergency use of a device without a court order for 12 hours. That change eased the bill’s sting for some, but others insist that judicial authorization should simply not be required, arguing that motorists have no expectation of privacy when driving on a public street.

“If it’s legal to follow someone around by car, or watch them with binoculars, then it should not be a problem to follow them [electronically],” said David Demerjian, acting chief of the major narcotics division at the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office.

Based on that reasoning, prosecutors in Los Angeles advise police that no search warrant is needed for use of an electronic device unless officers must break into a vehicle to attach it.

The American Bar Assn., in draft standards just issued by its task force on law enforcement and technology, endorses this view.

But at least one court has found that the use of an electronic tracker amounted to an unlawful “seizure” of a person’s car. The Oregon Supreme Court said placing such a device on the defendant’s car turned it “from his private personal effect to a tool of the state,” and concluded that a warrant was required.

The tracking gadgets are just one sample of an array of new crime fighting technologies. In the most far-reaching development, the National Institute of Justice has funded research on a variety of weapons scanners that can detect guns and other items through clothing from as far away as 60 feet.

The scanners could be on the market within three years, prompting Knox to propose guidelines for their use. The bill will be debated next year.

“Clearly, this is an area that raises some real civil liberties concerns,” Knox said.

“It’s definitely something our society is going to be dealing with.”