U.S. v. Jones (2012)

Antoine Jones, owner of a nightclub in Washington, D.C. was suspected by the FBI of cocaine trafficking. In addition to surveilling his nightclub, tapping his phones, and registering the phone numbers of the people who called Jones’s phone, a GPS was installed on the underbelly of the car he primarily used. Although a warrant was secured prior to the placement of the GPS device, the conditions of the warrant were not met. The GPS was to be installed in D.C. within 10 days of issuance. The feds installed the GPS on the 11th day when the car was in Maryland. Under these circumstances, the warrant was both expired and invalid, making the installation a warrantless search. The legal question raised by this case is whether or not the attachment of a GPS tracking device to a suspect’s vehicle violates the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure clause. The Court unanimously decided that it does.

The Court’s correct analysis of the Fourth Amendment’s protections and analysis of the Katz precedent led to the decision made in Jones.

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…” (U.S. Constitution). In the Opinion of the Court, Justice Scalia stated that a person’s vehicle is an effect and that the installation of a GPS of a target’s vehicle to monitor the target’s movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Citing the Katz precedent, Justice Scalia wrote that “a violation occurs when government officers violate a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy.”

In the Katz case, the Court stated that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone booth, even if someone can be seen inside of the booth from outside of the booth. Attaching a listening and recording device to the phone booth was ruled as a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure clause. In the Jones case, Justice Scalia implies that the same goes for attaching GPS devices to vehicles, because a vehicle is a constitutionally protected place.

In her Concurring Opinion, Justice Sotomayor stated that the authorities “usurped Jones’s property for the purpose of conducting surveillance on him, thereby invading privacy interests long afforded, and undoubtedly entitled to, Fourth Amendment protection.” This would not have been a violation if the warrant requirements were met. The warrant was for Washington, D.C. and there was a time requirement for installation. Installing the GPS in Maryland after the time limit was an unauthorized trespass on Jones’s property. Had the warrant be exercised under the conditions that is was supposed to have been, this would not have been an unconstitutional warrantless search.

This case provides a two- pronged test that examines whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and a trespass that makes government action violate the Fourth Amendment. Looking at Jones, one can see that both prongs are met. In his vehicle, Jones has a reasonable expectation of privacy (though not as much as he would have in his home). He also has the reasonable expectation that no one would tamper with and attach devices to his car without his knowledge and consent.