United States v. Jones

Notable Items:

The Fourth Amendment requirements on searches and seizures bar law enforcement from placing a GPS system on a vehicle to keep track of its location without a warrant.

Petitioner: United States
Respondent: Antoine Jones
Venue: Supreme Court of the United States
Opinion of the Court: United States v. Jones (2012)

Issue(s) Before the Court:

Whether the attachment of a Global-Positioning-System (GPS) tracking device to an individual’s vehicle, and subsequent use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements on public streets, constitutes a search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

Plaintiff / Appellant / Petitioner's Claim(s):

Defendant / Appellee / Respondent's Claim(s):

Holding(s) and Disposition:

Held: Attachment of a Global-Positioning-System (GPS) tracking device to an individual’s vehicle, and subsequent use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements on public streets, constitutes a search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
Disposition: Affirmed...admission of the evidence obtained by warrantless use of the GPS device violated the Fourth Amendment.

Material Facts:

... in 2005 the Government applied to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a warrant authorizing the use of an electronic tracking device ....
On the 11th day, and not in the District of Columbia but in Maryland, agents installed a GPS tracking device on the undercarriage of the Jeep while it was parked in a public parking lot.
Over the next 28 days, the Government used the device to track the vehicle’s movements, ....
A full recounting of the facts is available below

Procedural History:

[District Court held GPS] admissible because respondent had no reasonable expectation of privacy when the vehicle was [operated] on a public street.
The D.C. Circuit reversed, concluding that admission of the evidence obtained by warrantless use of the GPS device violated the Fourth Amendment.

Rationale

Scalia Majority Opinion

The Fourth Amendment provides “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their ... effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
It is beyond dispute that a vehicle is an “effect” as that term is used in the Amendment. United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1, 12 (1977) .
We hold that 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.”
... the Fourth Amendment was understood to embody a particular concern for government trespass upon the areas (“persons, houses, papers, and effects”) it enumerates.
... our very definition of “reasonable expectation of privacy” which we have said to be an expectation “that has a source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either by reference to concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society.” Minnesota v. Carter
By attaching the device to the Jeep, officers encroached on a protected area.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit is affirmed.
A full description of the rationale is available below

Sotomayor Concurrance (??)

Alito Concurrance (??)

Full Recounting of Facts

... in 2005 the Government applied to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a warrant authorizing the use of an electronic tracking device ....
On the 11th day, and not in the District of Columbia but in Maryland, [ 1 ] agents installed a GPS tracking device on the undercarriage of the Jeep while it was parked in a public parking lot.
Over the next 28 days, the Government used the device to track the vehicle’s movements, ....
Before trial, Jones filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained through the GPS device.
The District Court granted the motion only in part, suppressing the data obtained while the vehicle was parked in the garage adjoining Jones’s residence.
It held the remaining data admissible, because “ ‘[a] person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another.’ ”
In March 2007, a grand jury returned another indictment, charging Jones and others with the same conspiracy.
The Government introduced at trial the same GPS-derived locational data admitted in the first trial, ....
The jury returned a guilty verdict, ....
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the conviction because of admission of the evidence obtained by warrantless use of the GPS device which, it said, violated the Fourth Amendment.
A list of the material facts is available above

Majority Full Argument

[Part I: See Full Recounting of Facts ]
[Part II A: Review of Precedent ]
The Fourth Amendment provides “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their ... effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
It is beyond dispute that a vehicle is an “effect” as that term is used in the Amendment. United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1, 12 (1977) .
We hold that 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.”
The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information.
We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.
The text of the Fourth Amendment reflects its close connection to property, since otherwise it would have referred simply to “the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures”; the phrase “in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” would have been superfluous. [what can be searched that is not property?]
... Justice Harlan’s concurrence in that case [Katz v. United States], which said that a violation occurs when government officers violate a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy,”
... no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the area of the Jeep accessed by Government agents (its underbody) and in the locations of the Jeep on the public roads, which were visible to all.
... Fourth Amendment rights do not rise or fall with the Katz formulation.
... the Fourth Amendment was understood to embody a particular concern for government trespass upon the areas (“persons, houses, papers, and effects”) it enumerates.
... our very definition of “reasonable expectation of privacy” which we have said to be an expectation “that has a source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either by reference to concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society.” Minnesota v. Carter
By attaching the device to the Jeep, officers encroached on a protected area.
[Part II B: Objections to Reasoning in Concurrance ]
This Court has to date not deviated from the understanding that mere visual observation does not constitute a search. See Kyllo
[Part III]
The Government argues ... even if the attachment and use of the device was a search, it was reasonable—and thus lawful—under the Fourth Amendment because “officers had reasonable suspicion, and indeed probable cause, ....
We have no occasion to consider this argument. The Government did not raise it below, and the D. C. Circuit therefore did not address it.
We consider the argument forfeited.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit is affirmed.
The core of the rationale is available above