On 24th of October, 2005, Antoine Jones, a businessman running a nightclub in D.C was arrested by the police allegedly for drug possession. casebriefsummary.com, (2013) explains; Jones had an attachment of a GPS tracker by police officers on his jeep. The police’s claims after attaching the GPS on Antoine’s vehicle, he followed him over a period of one month. The jury cleared Jones of all the charges leveled against him except that for conspiracy. The district prosecutor was appalled and decided to file a case for conspiracy against Jones and his partner in business Lawrence Maynard. Following the appeal, Jones and his partner were convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. However, a three-judge bench of the appellant court in D.C made a ruling citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in a 1983 case involving the use of a beeper in suspect tracking. The appellant court ruled that such a decision was not to be used to warrant a 24hr surveillance of a suspect without a search warrant. Following the case, this essay identifies the constitutional questions raised; gives a presentation of both sides of the case; analyses the Supreme Court’s decision and explains the Constitutional significance of the case. Finally, the essay provides an opinion regarding the fairness of the case.
The constitutional question(s) raised in the case,
Upon handling the case by the three bench judge, they raised a constitutional question concerning the attachment of GPS on Jone’s car and subsequent 24hr monitoring of the vehicle’s movement on public streets. In that regard, they asked whether mounting the GPS on the vehicle and allowing 24hr surveillance amounts to search or seizure in accordance with the fourth amendment (Snyder, 2013).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Presentation of both sides of the case
On the government’s side of the case, the police having suspected Jones’ of conspiracy, they obtained a warrant to install a GPS in his vehicle. Understanding that Jones was an exclusive driver, they opted that tracing his movements would give a lead to his drug deals. Consequently, the installation of the GPS was allowed within the first ten days and would last for 90 days. The agents installed the GPS on the 11 the day and monitored the movement of Jones for the next 28 days (Henderson, 2013). The installation happened when the automotive was parked in a public place, and so was the replacement of the battery. Following the observation of Jones’ movements, the government moved to charge him together with his business partner as a fellow conspirator in cocaine trafficking. Additionally, the government in their submission stated that, based on Harlan standard, there was no search conducted since even Jones failed to issue a meaningful expectation of privacy in the area of the jeep where the GPS was installed (under the car).
Henderson, (2013) discusses, on its side, the Supreme Court used a meaningful expectation of privacy test in giving its opinion and subsequently a ruling. In delivering the opinion, Justice Scalia reaffirmed that a vehicle is an “effect.” Therefore, under the fourth amendment, the car is guaranteed protection from unreasonable searches or seizure. In that regard, the physical intrusions by the police and agents to install a GPS on Jones vehicle amounted to a “search.” The government interference and mounting of a GPS followed by 24hr surveillance amounted to a search.
Justice Scalia pointed out that by installing the GPS, the government tangibly occupied the private property for the purpose of data gathering. Within the meaning of Fourth Amendment the action by the agents qualifies for a search. He also noted that the formulation of Katz does not cause Jones’ fourth amendment rights to rise or fall. In that case, therefore, Justice Scalia notes that Katz standards for a reasonable expectation of privacy added to the understanding of the Fourth Amendment. Scalia also noted that the cases, Knotes and Karro beeper cannot be used to compare Jones’ case because, in those instances, an electronic device was not placed on a property under the possession of the defendant. It, therefore, meant that in Jones v the states, only Katz would best apply. Consequently, Scalia would argue that in this instance, the police indeed encroached into a private property to obtain information (Snyder, 2013).
Other judges Ginsburg, Kagan, Alito and Breyer further gave their opinion on the case. Alito would also agree that indeed four weeks of GPS mounted on a person’s vehicle monitoring his entire movement amounts to infringement of an individual's rights under the Fourth Amendment. Alito would rely on the law of trespass and contend that the approach would cause annoying problems in cases involving electronic surveillance.
Scalia would then counter Alioto’s argument by giving a pronouncement that the common law of trespass cannot be used as the exclusive test for cases around searches of property in Fourth Amendment. Scalia further stated that to achieve a visual observation on a person’s property via electronic means even without physical trespass is by itself unconstitutional attack on one’s property. In Scalia’s argument, Katz supplemented the test for trespass but did not substitute it. It is not just long-term surveillance or monitoring by GPS that would infringe on someone’s right to privacy but also short-term monitoring via GPS.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court made a very infamous decision contrary to the expectations of many. The central issue of constitutional concern regarded the Attachment of the GPS device on Jones’ vehicle as well as its subsequent utilization to monitor all his movements on public streets. The Supreme Court was to rule on whether it amounted to Search or seizure in accordance with the fourth amendment. Consequently, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court made a ruling pointing out that the federal government violated the fourth amendment. Snyder (2013) points out that the Court noted that the fourth amendment bans surreptitious and uncalled for searches and seizure of private property without a warrant. In that case, therefore, attaching a GPS on an individual’s vehicle and monitoring its movement throughout a month is in contravention of the law.
The court based its argument on the fourth amendment where Judges as the gatekeepers of the law are to protect individuals from unreasonable searches by the government; in this case, the government contended that the people of America have absolutely no reason for to have their privacy rights infringed. For such surveillance to occur, the noted, there must be an issuance of a warrant.
The Constitutional Significance / how the Decision Changed American Law of the Ruling
The ruling of Jones V United states in deed had an important constitutional significance in the US. In stemming the privacy rights, EPIC in Commonwealth v. Connolly filled a brief on the basis as a friend of the court ( Gatewood, 2013) . It their brief they argued proliferation of police traffic devices that are creating detailed travel profiles of Americans in an unregulated manner (Murphy, 2012) . As such they were able to warn of the police unregulated surveillance on the public without a predicate justification. The submission by EPIC refers to Jones v United States and influenced the ruling in in Commonwealth v. Connolly. Therefore, it does offer jurisprudence to the cases that are of a similar nature in the judicial practice.
A personal opinion on whether the case was correctly decided, and why or why not
Based on my personal observation, the case was correctly decided. The issue of concern was whether mounting the GPS tracker on Jones’ vehicle and allowing 24 hours monitoring amounts to an abuse of an individual’s fourth amendment right (Murphy, 2012). I would say yes. It does. Here is the reason. A Katz analysis offers insight into understanding the ruling of the court. Based on Katz analysis, long-term monitoring by GPS upon an individual in police investigations on an offense impinges upon that person’s privacy expectation (Gatewood, 2013). However, in cases where the monitoring is long term, a different approach could be taken because it would shoe details of one’s comprehensive record of movement in public and thus could reveal details of their familial, sexual or religious association among others details. Katz can be used to supplement the Fourth Amendment, and in this aspect, they are both in agreement granting individual’s a right to privacy.
Conclusion
United States V Antonine Jones is a case that seeks a constitutional interpretation at the Supreme Court. Following the appeal, following the submissions, the three-judge bench of the appellant court in D.C gave their submissions at the Supreme Court sighting, Katz and a 1983 case involving the use of a beeper in suspect tracking. The appellant court ruled that the GPS was not to be used to warrant a 24hr surveillance of a suspect without a search warrant. Following the case, the essay has identified the constitutional questions raised in which case regards the use of GPS for 24hr monitoring of an individual’s movement and whether it infringes one's fourth amendment right. Also, the essay has given a presentation of both sides of the case; analyzed the Supreme Court’s decision and explained the Constitutional significance of the case. Finally, the article has provided a personal opinion regarding the fairness of the case.
References
casebriefsummary.com. (2014, Nov 30). United States v. Jones. Constitutional Law Case Briefs Summery . Retrieved from http://www.casebriefsummary.com/united-states-v-jones/.
Henderson, S. E. (2013). After United States v. Jones, After the Fourth Amendment Third Party Doctrine. North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology . Retrieved from http://ncjolt.org/after-us-v-jones-after-the-fourth-amendment-third-party-doctrine/.
Murphy, E. (2012). Back to the Future: The Curious Case of United States v. Jones. Ohio St. J. Crim. L. , 10 , 325.
Gatewood, J. C. (2013). It's Raining Katz and Jones: The Implications of United States v. Jones-A Case of Sound and Fury. Pace L. Rev. , 33 , 683.
Snyder, M. L. (2013). Katz-ing up and (Not) Losing Place: Tracking the Fourth Amendment Implications of United States v. Jones and Prolonged GPS Monitoring. SDL Rev. , 58 , 158.
