U.S vs.

Jones (2012)

Antoine Jones, owner and operator of a nightclub in Columbia

came under suspicion of narcotics trafficking.
Based on information gathered through various investigative
techniques, police were granted a warrant authorizing use of a
GPS tracking device on the Jeep registered to Jones wife (of
which Jones was the exclusive driver)
The warrant that was issued authorizing the installation of the
GPS in the District of Columbia was valid for only 10 days
On the 11th day, not in Columbia but in Maryland, agents
installed the GPS tracking device on the undercarriage of the
Jeep while it was parked in a public parking lot. And in the
next 28 days, the Government used the GPS to track the
movements of the vehicle and even had to replace the battery
while it was parked again in a different parking lot in
Maryland.
By satellite, the device established the vehicles location within
50 to 100 feet and communicated the location by cell phone to
a government computer, relaying more than 2,000 pages of
data over a 28-day period.
The government ultimately obtained an indictment against
Jones which included charges of conspiracy to distribute
cocaine.
Before trial, Jones filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence
obtained thru the GPS device. It was partly granted, the data
that was suppressed were those date obtained while the vehicle
was parked in the garage adjoining Jones residence. While the
remaining data, were admissible.
The District Court denied the motion ruled that a person
traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no
reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one
place to another. (Relying on Katz ruling) A hung jury led to a
second trial, which resulted in a guilty verdict.
The D.C. Circuit Court reversed the conviction, holding the
admission of evidence obtained by warrantless use of the GPS
device violated the Fourth Amendment.

ISSUE: Does the attachment of a GPS tracking device to a vehicle and

subsequent use of that device to monitor the vehicles movements on
public streets constitute a search or seizure within the meaning of the
Fourth Amendment? YES
HELD:
(1) GPS attached to vehicle is a search

The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to

be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
In this case, by attaching the device to the Jeep, the officers
encroached on a protected area. Stated otherwise, the
Government physically trespassed on private property for the
purpose of obtaining information. Because the physical
trespass was on property expressly protected by the Fourth
Amendment.
Instead of using the Katz reasonable expectation privacy test,
Justice Scalia revitalized and then used a common-law
trespassory test.
Under this trespassory test, it was irrelevant whether Jones had
a reasonable expectation of privacy in data about where his car
had traveled it was enough that the Governments trespass
on Joness effect would have constituted a search within
the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

(2) Katz not substitute for trespassory test

In the Katz case, Fourth Amendment protects a persons

reasonable expectation of privacy. Katz did not repudiate the
understanding that the Fourth Amendment embodies a
particular concern for government trespass upon the areas it
enumerates. The Katz reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test
has been added to, but not substituted for, the common-law
trespassory test.

Hence, Katz supplemented rather than substituted the

trespassory test for whether a search has occurred.