Ben Mitchell Intro to Law

United States v. Jones: GPS Tracking

Summary of Facts
Jones was a nightclub owner who was suspected of cocaine trafficking. The police observed the nightclub and obtained a warrant to covertly install a GPS on his vehicle within ten days and in the District of Columbia, however the device was not installed until eleven days after in Maryland. Jones was caught with more than five kilograms of cocaine and charged with conspiracy to distribute. Before the trial, he moved to suppress the data based on a bad warrant. The court granted the motion in part, explaining that the data that was collected on public roads was admissible, but any data obtained while the Jeep was inside the garage next to Jones residence should be suppressed. The Fourth Amendment establishes the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.1

The Constitution of the United States, Amendment 4.

Central Issues
1. Whether the warrantless use of a GPS tracking device on respondents vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment.

Analysis
The court of appeals originally decided that the GPS evidence should be suppressed under the grounds that it was an unlawful search. The basis for determining the legality of a search is to assess whether or not the victim of the search exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy and whether or not that expectation was actually reasonable. The courts decision-making process was that the respondent had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the public movements of his vehicle over the course of a month because he had not exposed the totality of those movements to the public,2 and that a reasonable person does not expect anyone to monitor and retain a record of every time he drives his car rather, he expects each of those movements to remain disconnected and anonymous.3 Taking these assumptions on face, the warrantless search was probably unconstitutional, however I believe that the Supreme Court will decide the search was constitutional. The first argument made in response to this is that using these assumptions to prove the unreasonableness of the search would justify declaring any prolonged surveillance unconstitutional, because one could say a reasonable person wouldnt expect to be surveyed for a long period of time. Also, the defendant in fact did not exhibit a reasonable expectation of privacy as it pertains to his location (which is what a GPS tracks) because he was driving on public roads, which are owned by the government, and that his location was in plain sight of anybody who happened to look. Finally, even if the attachment and use of the GPS was a search or seizure, it did not violate Jones rights because it did not constitute an unreasonable
2 3

United States v. Jones. Supreme Court Brief. Print. Ibid.

search. The intrusiveness of the search would be weighed against the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.4 A GPS is very minimally intrusive, and thus the protection of the individuals privacy that comes from not attaining a search warrant would be outweighed by the benefits of using a GPS.

Ibid.