Antoine Jones Case Study

The Government argued the defendants’ Fourth Amendment not violated under the constitutional because the parked vehicle was at a public lot. In some States, the Government has the authority to allow police officers to search a vehicle without the necessity of warrant. “...as long as a state is deciding law based upon its interpretation of its own constitution, the state can be more restrictive than the Supreme Court. However, if the state is interpreting the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, then they must follow the body of law established by the United States Supreme Court”(Policelink). The Government believes the attachment of the monitoring device for search was a responsible forfeiting act. As well as wiretapping the defendants cellular to help them enforce a predominantly well prepared investigation.

Mapp appealed again to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1961. The case basically came down to this fundamental question: may evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admissible in state criminal proceedings? The Fourth Amendment states, ?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?and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.? The Fourth Amendment, however, does not define when a search or seizure is

Jones, “the Government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search.’” They stressed the importance of fact that the Government had “physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information.” Under these circumstances, it was not necessary to inquire about the defendant’s expectation of privacy in his vehicle’s movements in order to determine if a Fourth Amendment search had occurred. They continued to reaffirmed this principle in Florida v. Jardines, where they held that having a drug-sniffing dog nose around a suspect’s front porch was a search, because police physically entered the enclosure of the home and gathered information without being permitted by the

At Miss Mapp’s trial no search warrant was displayed by the prosecution nor was an explanation given (4). The Supreme Court dissented that appellant’s arrest was valid because of the circumstances which existed at the time of apprehension and therefore no warrant was requisite (3). The Supreme Court held that a government official may arrest a person without a warrant as long as probable cause is present and the person is guilty of a felony (3). In addition, the Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure clause in all state prosecutions. Hence, the Fourth Amendment’s right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the states through the Due Process

In this article about the U.S. vs. Jones cases is about a police who had put a GPS on Jones jeep to track down his movement. The officer in this case found that Jones had in store of illegal drugs and money in a safe house and arrested Jones. Although Jones may have in possession of illegal drugs the officer had violated Jones fourth amendment right of unreasonable search and seizure that had violated Jones privacy by implanting a GPS on his jeep without a warrant. The court found out that the officer did have a warrant but it was already past the expires date and question the use of technology that could easily violated the constitutional rights. In result the court threw out Jones's crimes and claim that officers are not allowed to use any

Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the judgment of the Court that the installation of a GPS tracking device on a Jones' vehicle without a warrant. The government had got information by usurping Jones' property and by invading his privacy that constituted an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment.

Belton does not authorize a vehicle search incident to a recent occupant’s arrest after the arrestee has been secured and cannot access the interior of the vehicle. Circumstances unique to the automobile context justify a search incident to arrest when it is reasonable to believe that evidence of the offense of

A Wyandotte County coroner is working on a case involving a Kansas City man and a child’s bones that were found on his property. This case has reached national headlines because of claims that say the child was beat to death and the body was fed to pigs. It is known that the bones had been in a pig enclosure in a barn for several weeks. It is believed the victim is the 7-year-old son of Michael A. Jones. Jones has been accused of child abuse, aggravated assault, and aggravated battery, but as the case is further investigated more charges will appear. Police were reporting to domestic violence involving Jones’s wife and police were told the son had been missing. The investigation is being conducted by the prosecution's office, the local Sheriff

JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court. Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Kennedy concurred and Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan dissent with the majority opinion.

In United States v. Jones, the Court determined it was a “search under the Fourth Amendment” when an FBI task force attached a GPS tracker, for a four-week period, to a suspected drug dealer’s vehicle for surveillance purposes and thus used the GPS tracker to learn the defendant’s “totality and pattern of his movements”. It should be noted however, the Court came to their conclusion based upon a theory of trespass, that is, the act of placing the GPS tracker on the defendant’s vehicle. “The Court acknowledged that extended electronic surveillance “without an accompanying trespass” may be unconstitutional, but noted that the “present case does not require us to answer that question.””

hey, im Javone Williams, i enjoy participating in sports, working hard at everything i do & i strive to reach my full potential. i have been involved in many extracurricular actives, such as, varsity football, varsity basketball, varsity boys track & field & varsity baseball. even though im involved in so much i am still able to work hard in the classroom as well as in practice & on game day. i plan on continuing my hard work in the classroom at Henry Ford College which is where i will be attending in the fall.

Michael Jones is 24 years old and recently graduated from Western Ivey. After living at home for just over a year with a paid internship, Michael was offered a full-time job at Queen and Bay St- The heart of the Toronto financial district. Due to this job offering, Michael is looking for a well-priced home, that is not permanent. The housing does not need to be both large and luxurious as only one person will be living here for now. Additionally, being close to public transit is highly important, as this is how the majority of younger people travel around the city, as the cost of a car is highly expensive, while the TTC is inexpensive and just as effective. The entertainment aspect is also important for this type of user, being close to nightlife

In 2009, David Leon Riley was charged due to gang-related video found on his cell phone during the search upon arrest. He argued that police’s warrantless search on his cell phone has violated his Fourth Amendment rights. However, the State of California affirmed the judgment.

Before trial, Jones filed a motion to suppress evidence collected by the GPS. The court allowed the motion only in part, suppressing the data collected while the car was parked in the garage by Jones’ place. The remaining data was admissible because a person moving in a car on public roads has no reasonable expectation of privacy. Jones’ trial in October 2006 produced a hung jury on the conspiracy count. In March 2007, a grand jury returned another indictment, charging Jones with the same conspiracy. At this trial, the government introduced the same GPS data admitted in the first trial that connected Jones to the suspect’s stash house, which contained

The overall court decision focused on how devices used to surveillance a person’s private home to explore and look for details that is not known to general public, calls for a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. If no warrant is presented then it is unreasonable. It describes how evidence that is gathered through a person’s own eyes is considered lawful, because visual surveillance in not considered a search. In Kyllos case evidence was gathered using sense-enhancing technology which was not the same as surveillance with the naked-eye. “Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a