Us V Jones 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012)

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)

United States v. Jones is one of many cases that the Supreme Court has ruled on. The case was one of the few cases that has a unanimous ruling. Evening though there was a unanimous rule there was still a debate on reasoning behind the ruling. The debate is between privacy given to a person’s property and a person’s expectation of privacy. United States v. Jones deals with a global positioning device attached to Jones’ car by officers without a warrant. The Supreme Court ruled that the attachment of the global positioning device was a violation of the fourth amendment. Justice Scalia gave the plurality opinion and their reasoning was that the intrusion on the car made it a violation of the fourth amendment.

As children, we have all stepped that “boundary” between right and wrong. From stealing money to shoplifting to fighting, we have all made our parents frustrated, made poor decisions, and perhaps, even made a egregious mistake. However, when does stepping that “boundary” become irremediable? Can the government punish minors under the same criteria they do with adults? And most importantly, what does the United States Constitution say? These are all questions that both the Missouri Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court had to consider when they dived into the case of Roper v. Simmons. To provide a little historical

Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Union Court cases over time have come forth and altered the course of this country and even the world. While this case didn’t really affect the world, Jones v. North Carolina brought forth an important question on prisoner’s rights. Jones v. North Carolina was a court case in 1977 that brought forth the debate if workers in prisons have the right to join a labor union. The details of the court case and thoughts on if the court was justified in their ruling will bring to light of what sort of value as a human being do prisoners have.

I choose the Supreme Court case United States v. Causby because initially it reminded me of the movie Burlesque. In the movie, a man named Marcus did not want the view of his penthouse to be ruined by a skyscraper being built right next to the window. So, instead of buying the land property, he bought the air rights. Owning these air rights means that he owned the air above the surface level. This is similar to this Supreme Court case because Lee Causby was suing for the disturbance being caused planes that was happening above his property, and common law doctrine said that ownership of land extends to the periphery of the universe. Lee Causby “owned a dwelling and a chicken farm near a municipal airport. The safe path of glide to one of 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

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

Katz v. United States was held in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967. Charles Katz was convicted of wagering based on evidence presented by the FBI. They planted devices on a public phone booth to record his conversations. This case violated the fourth amendment, which is our right to privacy Also the first and fifth amendments deal with our right to privacy as well. The fourth amendment states that we have the ?right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures? (Legal Information Institute, 2015).

Attaching a GPS device to the exterior of a vehcile does not violate a persons reasonalble expectation of privacy when exposed to the public view. The use of any technology to obtain information, which is in public view, does not violate the 14th amendment because it does not make the information any more public. Why would someone who puts something into public view have an expectation of privacy? This is the same as putting a trash bag on the curb and expecting someone not to look at it. The 14th amendment proctects against searches and seizures, however the use of exterior GPS devises does not contravene these safeguards. A GPS device would only show where the car is going not who is driving it, what they’re doing, or what they do at their

The extent of this problem is exhibiting startling cases involving similar issues. According to a Boston Law Review, this is certainly not the first case to be presented to the Court that questions the integrity of searches and seizures of cellular devices. Warrantless searches have actually been legal under the Fourth Amendment for roughly sixty years. While this may sound astonishing, smartphones were not around for most of this time-frame. In 2013, United States v. Wurie was a case that preceded Riley v. California with its own unique set of factors, while still remaining prevalent to the issue at hand. Within the case of United States v. Wurie, a cellular device was searched upon arrest, which sounds oddly comparable to the case presented. So, in this case, the court held that even though there was a legal search and arrest, this did not warrant a seizure of the Wurie’s cellular device. This was considered to be invasive, and negated an individual’s expectation of privacy (O’Connor, 2013).

Jones Car, was not his home. However, there are circumstances in which the court has ruled that it is. Justice Scalia believed that the fourth amendment is aimed at protecting “people and not places”. Some Justices also believe that trespassing on someone’s personal property is breaking the fourth as well, even if they are a cocaine dealer. Although, the police fumbled and put the GPS in the wrong jurisdiction during expired dates that exceeded the warrant. That is why other justices had to side with the Respondent on this issue. On another side, the court believed a search, can be determined as the effect of a physical intrusion. That would deem the GPS, being placed on the SUV violated Jones fourth amendment rights because it intruded on his “everyday” life. In understanding their decision we look more into other Supreme Court cases. In Katz V U.S, which states that everyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Supreme Court decided that Respondent Jones was denied his reasonable expectation of privacy, and they also believe that the Government overstepped and trespassed on his property. In another case, U.S V Karo, which involved electronic tracking involving a beeper, similarly to a GPS or electronic monitoring. The court believed that this was unconstitutional since the police did not have a warrant when tracking a can of ether. When will the line be drawn, that the Court can't always be behind the ball in the technology game? It seems that criminals will always be ahead of the police, if the court keeps on shooting down their appeals, to serve

On November 18, 2011, charges were brought against Antoine Jones for possession of drug trafficking. The case was held by the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 10-1259, Citation 565 U.S 132 s. Ct. 945, 181 L. Ed 2d 911; United States, petitioner v. Antoine Jones. All 9 parties of the Supreme Court were present for the trial as well as the plaintiffs which were the law enforcements along with Deputy Michael R. Dreeben and the defendant Antoine Jones. Each party had a chance to deliberate their opinions and stating their case against Antoine Jones. This case was not only brought into court for Mr. Jones’s cocaine distribution but for authorities violating Antoine Jones Fourth Amendment rights by planting a global positioning system on

FACTS: In 2004 Antoine Jones came under suspicion of drug trafficking and was made the target of an investigation. In 2005 the government applied and obtained a search warrant permitting it to install a Global-Positioning-System (GPS) device on a vehicle registered to Antoine Jones’s wife. The warrant authorized the GPS to be installed within 10 days in the District of Columbia, but it was not installed until the 11th day in Maryland. The government then proceeded to track the vehicle and arrested Jones on October 24, 2005, for drug possession.

This is the Evidentiary Hearing for Andrew Thomas the defendant who filed this claim after he was convicted of an armored vehicle robbery in 1998. Mr. Thomas filed this case to vacate the sentence that he received when he was convicted; due to new evidence that came to light that he claimed his original

For a timeline and a narrative of the cases that set legal precedence in the areas of retaliation and sexual harassment would consist of Williams v. Saxbe in 1976. The court recognized sexual harassment as a form of sexual discrimination when sexual advances by male superior towards female employee. In the Barnes v. Costle case in 1977, it set the precedent that if a female employee was retaliated against for rejecting sexual advances of her boss, it is a violation of Title VIIs prohibition against sex discrimination. The court of US Court of Appeals, Second District ruled in this matter. In the Bundy v. Jackson case in 1981, it set the precedent that if an employee is sexually insulted, there can be Title VII liability. This was ruled by