Investigation Involving The Trafficking Of Narcotics

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)

David Leon Riley was pulled over by a police officer for driving with expired license plates. Once pulled over for operating the vehicle without valid registration, the officer discovered that Riley also had a suspended license. Following police policy for suspended licenses, the officer impounded Riley’s car. At that point another officer performed a mandatory inventory search of the car that led to the discovery of two handguns under the hood of the vehicle. Police proceeded to arrest Riley for the possession of loaded firearms. The arresting officer also found and seized a cell phone in Riley’s possession along with items associated with the “Bloods” street gang. Photographs and videos accessed on the cell phone connected Riley to the

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

American history has seen past and present controversial cases surrounding the issue of GPS tracking. Essentially, the Fourth Amendment provides documentation that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and enforces that search warrants are formulated on probable cause, not on suspicion of law enforcement officials. Moreover, the Fourth Amendment has been around for nearly 250 years and has served its purpose for American Citizens, however, there are many relevant cases that suggest when the Amendment violated the rights of an individual. Below are controversial cases that caused

sexual offender in North Carolina, who was forced to wear a “satellite-based monitoring (SBM)” tacking device that would track his whereabouts for the rest of his life. Grady argues that subjection to this “SBM” was violated under his Fourth Amendment right.

Antoine Jones is an owner of a nightclub in the District of Columbia, and he is suspected of trafficking narcotics. The FBI and Metropolitan Police Department, after using various investigative techniques, obtained a warrant to install an electronic tracking device on the vehicle of Jones’s wife within 10 days and in the District of Columbia. On the 11th day, in a parking lot in Maryland, the government installed the GPS system on the vehicle. They tracked the vehicle’s movements for 28 days. Jones was later convicted in March 2007, and in that trial, the jury found him guilty and the District Court sentenced him to life imprisonment. Jones appealed to the appellate court, arguing that the use of

It was also the fact that whether or not the evidence was retrieved when the law enforcement illegally attached a tracking device to the vehicle could be used to convict Jones on drug charges who was sentence to life in prison. According to the Fourth Amendment citizens have the right to be secured in their houses, papers and effects against an reasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated an no warrants shall be issue upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and person or thing to be seized.

Law Enforcement’s use of illegal search warrants in violation of the fourth amendment rights. This is the case of Jones v. United States (2012). Antoine Jones owned a nightclub in the District of Columbia. In 2004, a joint Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Metropolitan Police Department task force began investigating Jones for narcotics violations. During the course of the investigation, a Global Positioning System (GPS) device was installed on Jones 's Jeep Grand Cherokee, without a valid warrant. This device tracked the vehicle 's movements 24 hours a day for four weeks. The FBI arrested Jones in late 2005, multiple motions were filed on Jones ' behalf including the motion to suppress the GPS data. This motion formed the basis for Jones ' appeals. Are law enforcement officers in the conduct of their duties allowed to violate the fourth amendment rights of citizens by using illegal search warrants, can they enter into your residence without permission, are they allowed to eavesdrop on your conversations or wiretap your communications without warrants or with illegal warrants?

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

A police attached a GPS tracking device to Jones's Jeep (without judicial approval) and applied it to monitor the vehicle’s movements for 28 days. On Oct 24, 2005, Antoine Jones was arrested for drug possession. But a jury found Jones not guilty and declared a hung jury. District prosecutors refilled a single count of conspiracy against Jones and his business partner, Lawrence Maynard. Jones and Maynard were then convicted. The District of Columbia Circuit claim that the evidence was provided by GPS tracking device violated the Fourth Amendment. This raised a controversial question: Does the positioning of a GPS tracking device to track the vehicle’s movements on public streets constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment?

S. Supreme Court end up taking a step backwards to examine was the “Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), which is a case that involved an anonymous tip that a resident was selling narcotics” (“Arizona v. Gant”, 2009). LEOs knocked on the door and asked to talk to the owner, but Gant opened the door and specified that the owner will return later on. They left, but not before they conducted an outstanding warrant check, at which time it was revealed that Gant had a suspended license and an outstanding warrant for driving with an adjourned license, and a warrant for his arrest. Therefore, they returned later when they observed a man at the back door and a female in the driveway in a parked

In Kyllo v. United States, the court held that thermal imaging from a point to monitor radiation that comes from another’s home amounted to search under the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, in the United States v. Jones found that the installation of a GPS device on a target vehicle and its use to monitor the movement of the vehicle constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment, hence showing

The 20th Century Fox film Traffic, written by Stephen Gaghan and directed by Steven Soderbergh, was clearly a brilliant piece of work and it received the highest recognition that films can achieve: it earned Oscars for Best Directing (Soderbergh), Best Supporting Actor (Benicio del Toro), Best Film Editing (Stephen Mirrione), and Best Adapted Screenplay (Gaghan). The film was also nominated as Best Picture but lost out to Gladiator (Rotten Tomatoes). Traffic certainly was a realistic film and its release in 2001 presented the public with a fairly un-Hollywood look into the trafficking culture, the users' culture, and law enforcement's sometimes clumsy attempt to put a stop to trafficking.

Watson, upon the pat down of Mr. Watsons’ person, officer Johnson found a “hand carved pipe with a golf ball size bowl and a five inch long pipe’ which officer Johnson believed was being used for smoking marijuana. Officer Johnson then handcuffed and placed Watson into the back seat of his patrol car and went to remove the keys from the Watson vehicle to check the trunk for the kidnapped three year old child, upon opening the trunk of the Fiat sports coupe car, Johnson found a cellophane wrapped package that looks to contain marijuana. Officer Johnson returned to his patrol car and informed Watson that he was under arrest for the Possession of Marijuana with the intent to distribute a controlled drug substance.

What is the first thing that comes into your mind when you hear of the region Latin America? Poverty, violence, drugs? Latin America is a major region where drugs are generated, imported, and exported. The general stereotype with regards to Latin America is that the region is drug infested due to the history of use, the problems regarding drug trafficking, and the continued statistics proving the ongoing use of drugs. Despite the fact that not every country in Latin America fits in this mold, history and data supports this impression.