United States V. Jones

United States V. Jones

Contents

TOC o “1-3” h z u II. Legal Background PAGEREF _Toc381192731 h 1The Oral Arguments PAGEREF _Toc381192732 h 1The Ruling PAGEREF _Toc381192733 h 2III. The Court’s reasoning PAGEREF _Toc381192734 h 3IV. Analysis PAGEREF _Toc381192735 h 3V. Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc381192736 h 4

II. Legal Background

In 2004, Antoine Jones the owner of the nightclub in Columbia was investigated for narcotics violation by the joint Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Metropolitan Police Department. While the two bodies were carrying out the investigation, the Global Positioning System (GPS) device was installed on his Jeep Grand Cherokee to monitor his vehicle for about 28 days without a warrant. Because of that, the court required the parties to address the issue and find out whether it was right to use a warrantless tracking device on the respondent’s vehicle in monitoring the movement on public streets since it violated the Fourth Amendment. Jones however argued that installations of GPS tracker on his car violated his expectations of privacy and the Fourth Amendment for unreasonable search. In August 2010, Jones issue was overheard by the Court of Appeals in the United States overturning Jones’s conviction regarding the FBI action since it violated his privacy. In this case, the court’s decision became the subject of the significant legal debate.

The Oral ArgumentsIn June 2011, the Court of Supreme had two questions to be resolved regarding the parties involved. The first task was to find out whether installing a tracking device on the respondent’s vehicle without a warrant to monitor Jones movements on the public streets violated a Fourth Amendment. The second task was to find whether the Fourth Amendment right was violated by the government by installing a tracking device on Jones vehicle without a valid warrant and his consent. Various investigations were carried out, among those who were involved in the investigation was Michael Dreeben, the Deputy Solicitor General who argued that, movement on the public road has nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment hence it was not protected. Dreeben gave an example of the United States and Knotts where the police used a beeper device that tracks cars that were in a shorter distance. The case was distinguished by the chief justice who said that using beepers takes a lot of time, but GPS devices only allows the investigators to sit back in a given station while pushing the button to find where the vehicle is. Many people gave out different arguments regarding the issue of United States v. Jones. According to Justice Scalia, installation of GPS device on Jones was a trespass since the device was installed against the owners’ will exposing the owner to insecurity against unreasonable seizure as well as search. Dreeben on the other hand also agreed that, it was an act of trespassing since the Fourth Amendment was to protect the privacy interests of people, but not to cover the technical trespasses (Jim, 2012).

The RulingIn 2012, the court of supreme held that, by the Government trying to install GPS device on respondents’ vehicle was a search and was under the Fourth Amendment. However, some people wrongly interpreted court holding that the investigation actions were unconstitutional by not obtaining the search warrant to install a tracking device to the suspect’s car. Conversely, the majority argued that GPS device installation was the Fourth Amendment of search and this declined to know whether search required a warrant.

III. The Court’s reasoning

In United States v. Jones, the court reasoning concerning the case was passed in 2012, where the Supreme Court argued out that the installation of the GPS device by the Government on the respondent vehicle to monitor movement was as a result of investigation that constituted a Fourth Amendment. The Government also argued that, it would be reasonable if only the Government had used the device for a search, however it forfeits since to Jones, it was done warrantless without his consent. The Supreme Court also holds that, the use of GPS device that monitors movements is viewed as a search in the Fourth Amendment only if the evidence happened to be used against the person having interest in monitoring a property. Conversely, for a search to be a constitutional one, the search has to be supported with a cause that is probable as well as conducted pursuant to the warrant requirements. The U.S. Supreme court on the other hand failed to address if the warrant was required to monitor the device, the warrant can only be advisable unless the exigency is demonstrated. The court also argued that, it would be wise to consider the people being monitored by the tracking device have privacy even if they fail to have interest in the property or an issue that is subjected to the search.

IV. Analysis

In United States v. Jones, the Court of Supreme seized that, the installation of the GPS device by the Government to track the respondents’ vehicle movements is under the Fourth Amendment of a search. Most people misinterpreted the court holding that the FBI actions were not constitutional by failing to obtain the warrant extended search, instead trespassed by attaching the tracking device to monitor the movement of the suspect on his car. The majority of people on the other hand, held that, the GPS device installation followed the Fourth Amendment Search; however it only failed in showing whether the search had a warrant and was reasonable (Lisa, 2013)

Justice Samuel Alito who authored other four justices also agreed with the decision made by the Supreme Court, but not t the majority opinion. Samuel argued against the trespass reliance under modern circumstance, and therefore, the search in Fourth Amendment failed to apply to the scenario of United States v. Jones. Samuel being among the four justices was the only person who thought that monitoring of an individual’s movement continuously for 28 days could have violated the suspects’ privacy that constituted a search. He further explained that a one month surveillance of the movements of a person is exceptionally demanding requiring more resources.

V. ConclusionDespite the fact that the ruling was based on the Government Supreme Court committing the trespass, it is clear that, the court justices who are the majority found a search that had occurred in a situation that is identical but without trespass. For example, let’s take a case where the government happened to continuously monitor the movement of the car using the installed GPS device; it would have been likely that the Supreme Court would find that as a result of a long term GPS device surveillance which occurred violating an individual expectation of privacy (Jim, 2012). Conversely, the court on the other hand stood firm by holding that the installation of the GPS device was a search under the Fourth Amendment, despite the fact that some of the majority of court declined questioning whether the search required a warrant.

Works cited

Judge, Lisa . “Implications for Other Technologies as Courts Apply Jones to GPS Cases.” The Proffesional Voice of Law Enforcement. N.p., 2012. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. <www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=2704&issue_id=72012>.

Harper, Jim. “U.S. v. Jones: Fourth Amendment Law at a Crossroads | Policy Report | Cato Institute.” Cato Institute | Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace. N.p., 2012. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. <http://www.cato.org/policy-report/septemberoctober-2012/us-v-jones-fourth-amendment-law-crossroads>.