近年來，警方偵查實務上，常見依賴新興科技設備輔助執法，然而，輔助偵查犯罪之科技技術，可能干涉人民受憲法保障之基本權利，運用此等工具或技術所取得之資訊，是否合法及合憲？是否侵害人民受憲法所保障之權利？本文以GPS定位追蹤使用之科技運用為主題，分析並檢討美國聯邦最高法院Jones案判決及協同意見書之見解，藉以判斷未來高科技偵查設備之使用，是否侵害人民受憲法所保障之權利？而應由司法事前、事後審查及應否取得法院核發令狀，方得裝置GPS定位追蹤或使用科技定位追蹤執法？殊值探討。而該案之二審法院判決曾提出馬賽克理論，認定長時間使用該設備蒐集個人私密資訊，侵害人民之隱私權，屬於美國聯邦憲法第四增修條文之搜索，但Jones案判決並未採納該理論，本文將詳細分析檢討馬賽克理論，一併檢討該理論適用上之漏洞。最後，我國法制，本文認為目前無明文規範使用GPS定位追蹤之相關法律，故有增設相關規定之需要，因此在立法論上，本文提出幾點建議等，作為法制化之基本要求，以達兼顧人權保障及執法利益。此外，立法機關應參酌相關法律，如通訊監察保障法對通訊監察之隱私認定，統一隱私權之定義及界線，如此方可形成一整套嚴密且保障隱私權之程序法秩序，避免造成法律間不一致或矛盾，或解釋上困惑。

In recent years, police officials have often relied on high-tech equipment in criminal investigations. The use of such equipment, however, may encroach upon fundamental human rights such as the property rights and the right of privacy; hence, the constitutionality of using this equipment to attain evidence is called into question. This article will examine the use of GPS tracking devices in criminal investigations and analyze the Jones decision with regard to the constitutionality of their use. It will also present a detailed review of the theory, and provide a critique of the myopic view of the decision in that the decision could not make future implications. Additionally, the United States Supreme Court did not decide the Jones case based on the Mosaic theory, created by the Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, in the same case; we, therefore, will delve into the theory and its potential flaws if adopted. In conclusion, this article will recognize that the use of GPS tracking devices in criminal investigations is a legal vacuum in the current legal norms in Taiwan. It will suggest several critical points on the legal infrastructure of the use of GPS tracking devices, and suggest that the legislative branch codify the protection of the interest of privacy rights by reference to the current Wire-Tapping Law.