Constitutional Monitoring of Vehicle Movements

As well as without the defendants’ knowledge, the tracker installed in the vehicle for 28 days. “The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in U.S. vs. Jones to determine whether the police had violated Antoine Jones’ Fourth Amendment rights when they attached a GPS to his car without a warrant and tracked his movements.” (Andrew)

The Fourth Amendment is the first line protection against the government and their officials from violating our privacy. The Fourth Amendment provides safeguards to individuals during searches and detentions, and prevents unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases. The degree of protection available in a particular case depends on the nature of the detention or arrest, the characteristics of the place searched, and the circumstances under which the search takes place. This Amendment protects us in the following situations such as being questioned while walking down the street, being pulled over while driving, entering individual’s homes for arrest and searching of evidence while there. In most scenarios, police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or her property unless the officer has a valid search warrant, a valid arrest warrant, or a belief rising to the

Justice Scalia with three other justices argued that the intrusion on the vehicle without a warrant is what made the tracking of the vehicle movements a violation of the fourth amendment. Plurality opinion used the property theory of privacy from the eighteenth century. The property theory of privacy is that one has privacy in things that they own. Using this theory, Justice Scalia came to the ruling that Jones’ fourth amendment right was violated when the agents applied the GPS to Jones’

The purpose for the Fourth Amendment is to protect people from intrusion of the government in areas where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It prohibits searches and seizures unless they are conducted with probable cause and under reasonable circumstances. “The Fourth Amendment only protects against searches and seizures conducted by the government or pursuant to governmental direction. Surveillance and investigatory actions taken by strictly private persons, such as private investigators, suspicious spouses, or nosey neighbors, are not governed by the Fourth Amendment” (Criminal.Findlaw.com, 2013).

On the date of February 4th, 1965, believing that the Petitioner had been using public pay phones to transmit illegal gambling wagers from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began their surveillance into the life of the Petitioner, Charles Katz. Fifteen days later on February 19th, 1965 FBI agents working the case against the Petitioner had gained access to a phone booth within a set of phone booths that the petitioner frequented on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles, and summarily recorded the petitioner’s side of conversations he was having on the phone within a booth nearby. This surveillance lasted until the 25th (excluding February 22, as no evidence was obtained due to technical difficulties) the date of the petitioner’s arrest, which took place immediately after he exited the same set of phone booths (Brief for Respondent 3). In this case there are two major constitutional questions which need to be addressed: (1) whether evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening and recording device to the top of a public telephone booth used and occupied by the Petitioner is gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and (2) whether the search warrant used by the FBI officers in this case violated the Fourth Amendment to the constitution in that the warrant was (a) not founded on probable cause; (b) an evidentiary search warrant and (c) a general search warrant. While the Petitioner would like the answer to be yes in both cases,

“Nothing is more clear than that the Fourth Amendment was meant to prevent wholesale intrusions upon the personal security of our citizenry, whether these intrusions be termed ‘arrests’ or ‘investigatory detentions.’ ” Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 726-727.

What constitutes a valid search and seizure? The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures. Consequently, it seeks to create stability or poise between the needs of law enforcement and the privacy of people in the United States (Worrall, 2017). The justifications that arise from the law make sure that enforcement officials function within reasonable standards in their search of a suspect. This paper examines the three levels of justification that validates a Fourth Amendment search. As a result, it is necessary to explore such justifications and their applicability.

The Fourth Amendment provides protection against illegal policing by, barring searches that are “unreasonable” and without the justification of “probable cause.” In relativity, once individuals’ rights have been violated and the evidence is obtained illegally, and trialed at court, The Exclusionary Rule can be applied to assist a Defendant in a criminal case as a remedy for illegal searches that violate the rights set forth in the Fourth Amendment. When applicable, the rule dictates that the evidence illegally obtained must be excluded as evidence under the Fourth Amendment. One important corollary to the Exclusionary Rule is the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. This rule holds that, in addition to the material uncovered during the illegal search being in admissible, any evidence that is later gathered as an indirect result of the illegal search will also be excluded (Wong,1963).

The United States v. Jones case is distinguished by the use of GPS tracking (as that was not an entity when the Fourth Amendment was created). Antoine Jones was arrested for drug possession after police attached a GPS tracker to his car for more than the allowed time the warrant held out for. With this case, the U.S. Supreme Court universally established that Americans have constitutional protections against GPS surveillance by law enforcement. In this day and age, GPS tracking is considered a search under the Fourth Amendment. The founding fathers who put together the Constitution never imagined technology like this, so they had no reason to include examples like this case in the Fourth Amendment. As the Fourth Amendment

United States v. Antonie Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945, (2012) is a case where Defendant came under suspicion of trafficking with narcotics. Agents installed a GPS tracking device on the undercarriage of his wife’s vehicle while it was parked in a public parking lot. Over the 28 next days, the Government used the device to track every single movement of the vehicle. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Government’s installation of the GPS device on defendant’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, was constituted a “search”. Under the common-law trespassory test, the Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. Such a physical intrusion would have been considered as a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was originally adopted. Defendant possessed the vehicle at the time the Government trespassorilly inserted the information-gathering device. Although the Government forfeited its alternative argument that officers had reasonable suspicion and probable cause, the conviction was overturned. In this case the Supreme Court announced that a warrant is required to track a suspect through GPS systems. Regardless of the car being in public or private property, a warrant is needed to be able to intrude someone’s personal property; in this case the defendant

The Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights ensures Americans the right to be secure in their homes from government intrusion. Essentially, an officer cannot enter the place of residence of an individual without probable cause or a search warrant. However, with the advances in technology, the government is able to use GPS technology to gain information on certain criminal prospects without probable cause. This is considered unlawful in regards to what the Fourth Amendment stands for. Even under the current law, it still comes to the matter of question if this type of scrutiny was done in a public or private area. However, the Supreme Court issued a statement that devices that contain GPS tracking capabilities are acceptable on a public

We Americans are very fortunate that we have one of the top ten amendments that grant us the right to our privacy not being violated. The Fourth Amendment search and seizure clause focuses primarily on privacy; and this is enforced to ensure that citizens are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also does not matter what level of law enforcement jurisdiction an officer is apart of, whether it be State or Federal they are not allowed to violate this right. This particular amendment has been ameliorated many times, and that is to meet the needs of the American people. This paper shall discuss the following: the history and purpose of the Fourth Amendment, an explanation of whether or not the United States requires police to

In recent times there has been a growing number of concerns regarding the way police officers perform arrests. Along with these arrests are searches conducted by officers which can sometimes be unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution protects its citizens by giving “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” (U.S. Const., amend. IV). This amendment aims to prevent officers from conducting random searches of a citizens’ property and aims to give them a reasonable expectation of privacy.

My paper is going to be focused on the Fourth Amendment, which sets the baseline for searches and seizures. I will present what the Fourth Amendment is, what the rights of the individual are as stated in the Fourth Amendment, what limitations may be held within the Fourth Amendment, what must be included within the warrant, and more. I decided to write on this topic as I believe that it is important for us as citizens to know what our rights are, and not just rely on what we think we know about the Constitution. A country which is educated about the rights which they have, and utilizes these rights in the correct instances is a country which is governed by laws, and

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