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.

The lower courts ruled that only the data gained while the vehicle was parked in the garage adjoining to his home would be inadmissible, but all other information would be admissible. They ruled this way because people traveling on public roads have no reasonable expectation of privacy of his movements (United States v. Jones, 2012). The D.C. Circuit court reversed the conviction and ruled that a warrantless use of a GPS device to track his movements while on public streets a violation of the fourth amendment. The reasoning behind their ruling was the information was exposed that would not have been if they did not have every movement he had made over the course of four weeks and this information was not accessible by the general public just by him driving on public streets (Anthony s. Barkow, 2011).

While searching an automobile there is a different standard. For example, in the case Chimel v. California, the automobile was a ?movable scene of crime.? Evidence could be gone by the time a warrant could be issued. In California v. Acevedo, 1991, the court set down a rule that covers all automobile searches. It was ruled that, ?when ever police lawfully stops a car, they do not need a warrant to search anything in that vehicle that they do not have a reason to believe holds evidence of a crime.? (Grolier Encyclopedia)

"Reasonable expectation of privacy" is a legal term based on standards and norms about privacy which are held by a society. In the US, the case "Katz v. United States" was the first time the term "reasonable expectation of privacy" was used. What "...a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection…. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."[10] This decision provided a precedent to be used in future cases to determine what can be considered private, protected information. Further rulings based on this precedent have established that the expectations of a

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. In order to reaffirm the courts’ decision on this matter I will be relating their decisions in the cases of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which deal directly with the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy as provided for in the fourth amendment with regards to objects in an open field or in plain view.

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

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution holds grave importance for the citizens of the United States of America. This amendment of the Constitution is exceptionally important due to the fact, that it protects citizens from unreasonable searches or seizures. However, the phrase, “reasonable expectation of privacy” is a different aspect that is pertinent to the evolution of the Fourth Amendment, and Riley v. California. To dissect this phrase, reasonable is the important aspect here, this is where the court must decide what is and what is not reasonable, in relation to the Fourth Amendment. Privacy, on the other hand, seems to be defined inadequately. (Baude & Stern, 2016). Within this, importance comes from the actual warrant requirement

Jones. I then asked Mrs. Havsch to step off the porch wear she had been standing since my arrival. I then informed Mrs. Havsch if Mr. Jones was in the RV, she needed to tell us due to the fact if Mr. Jones was inside the RV that Mrs. Havsch would be charged with Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution. Mrs. Havsch at that time stated she did not know if Mr. Jones was inside the RV or not. As Sergeant Bowring and I entered the RV it was very small and confined, I walked to the rear of the RV to a small room and advised Mr. Jones if he was inside the room he needed to come out with his hands up. At that time Mr. Jones stated he was in fact there and stepped out from behind the corner of the door. At that time Mr. Jones was detained and transported to a Rains County Deputy. Mrs. Havsch was placed under arrest for Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution and transported to the Wood County

The Kyllo v. United States and United States v. Jones cases follow the adage that the “Fourth Amendment protects people and not places” as shown by Katz v. United States. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment protects a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy” as reaffirmed by Katz v. United States, which shows that it protects people as opposed to places.

United States v. Jones had helped established what would be considered intrusive and it would be easy to see that the accumulation of such personal information through cell phone location data would qualify as overly invasive. In Smith v. Maryland, the court had stood by the decision that “a personal travelling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another because he voluntarily conveys to anyone who wants to look the fact that he was traveling over particular roads in a particular direct, the fact of whatever stops he made, and the fact of his final destination.”

Two constitutional guarantees create these zones of privacy: (a) the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, which is the basis of the right to be let alone, and (b) the right to privacy of communication and correspondence. In assessing the challenge that the State has impermissibly intruded into these zones of privacy, a court must determine whether a person has exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so, whether that expectation has been violated by unreasonable government intrusion.

The government was given a search warrant allowing them to install a GPS tracking device in Washington D.C. and within 10 days. After the 10 days, and not in D.C., agents installed the GPS under Jones’ Jeep while it was parked in a public parking lot. For about a month, the government used the GPS to monitor the car’s movements, and had to replace the battery once when it was parked in a different public lot outside of D.C. Signals from multiple satellites relayed the location by cell phone to a government computer. It communicated more than 2,000 pages of data over the 4-week period. The government obtained a multiple-count indictment charging Jones with conspiracy to distribute and possess, with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and 50 grams or more of cocaine base.

Reasonable expectation of privacy is an issue dealing with the Fourth Amendment of the Coalesced States Constitution. In the constitution the Fourth Amendment kenned as "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against adamant searches and seizures, shall not be breached, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, fortified by Oath or affirmation, and concretely describing the place to be probed, and the persons or things to be seized." Expectation of privacy is defined as the credence in the ease of liberation from unwanted governmental intrusion of personal property, house, or persons. Prospect of privacy is homogeneous but not identically tantamount thing as right of privacy.

The GPS device used by law enforcement was designed to catch Jones in trafficking cocaine and large amounts of money. The

Individual Privacy is a fundamental that is protected in the constitution, but most of the time its ignored because it’s not directly stated but rather implied. To demonstrate the importance of individual privacy I will be discussing how its outlined in the constitution and how people misinterpret the meaning of the constitution. In Acquisti’s article it explains the court case United States v. Antoine Jones and the results were overturned because a GPS was used to track Jone’s jeep and that was a violation of his 4th