Home » Government Articles » Supreme Court to Decide Government Surveillance Case
Supreme Court to Decide Government Surveillance Case
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide what is arguably the most important and controversial Fourth Amendment cases in a generation. Learn more about the central issues in U.S. v. Jones, and how the likely outcome may affect future criminal defendants
November 09, 2011 /Government PR News/ -- After hearing oral arguments, the Supreme Court will decide what is arguably the most important (and controversial) Fourth Amendment cases in a generation. In U.S. v. Jones, the Court will be asked to determine whether the Constitution allows law enforcement agencies to insert GPS tracking devices on privately owned vehicles without a search warrant, and whether the police violate the Fourth Amendment when they use such a tracking device to monitor the vehicle's whereabouts.
Taking into account the history and precedent regarding lawful searches that incorporate technology, it is conceivable that the Court could go either way in answering these questions. It could decide that GPS tracking is merely an advancement of the technology upheld in U.S. v. Knotts, and that the Constitutional analysis should not the change the outcome of the present case. It could also determine that the reasonable expectation of privacy extends to GPS monitoring, because of the intensely specific evidence produced by GPS devices, and the ability for the police to conduct such surveillance for extended periods of time without any human observation justifies a search warrant.
This article will briefly highlight the case's procedural history, the central issues involved, and the likely implications for criminal defendants.
Procedural History
In November 2007, Antoine Jones and Lawrence Maynard were tried in U.S. District Court for conspiracy to distribute, and possession with intent to distribute, five or more kilograms of cocaine and 50 or more grams of cocaine base. Jones and Maynard were found guilty at trial, and both defendants appealed, arguing that the court improperly allowed evidence stemming from wiretaps, searches resulting from traffic stops and other procedural errors. Jones also argued that the court should not have admitted evidence obtained from the warrantless use of a GPS tracking device placed on his vehicle, which allowed the police to monitor his movements for nearly one month.
The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed, and reversed Jones' conviction. It reasoned that the GPS search was distinguishable from the search upheld in U.S. v. Knotts, where police used a beeper device to monitor the movement of a shipment of ether that was to be used in a drug manufacturing ring. It also held that such a search was not reasonable under U.S. v. Katz, as the motor vehicle exception to warrantless searches did not apply. The government sought certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether the use of GPS tracking devices in this fashion constituted a search.
The Central Issues
In understanding the issues central to the case, it is important to consider how the Court has traditionally interpreted searches and seizures in light of the Fourth Amendment. A search occurs when the government infringes upon an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy in order to observe evidence, information or activities (whether incriminating or not) in a private space. The act of exposing such information from a private space so it is in the government's view constitutes a search. A Fourth Amendment seizure occurs when government conduct meaningfully interferes with an individual's possessory interest in property. The government's acts in taking control of such property constitute a seizure.
The search and seizure here consisted of two government acts: federal agents going underneath the car to attach the device; then actually affixing the device to the car. In analyzing whether a search occurred, the Court will have to decide if Jones had (or was entitled to) a reasonable expectation of privacy in the undercarriage of his car. The Court will also be faced with the question of whether the act of attaching the device meaningfully interferes with the defendant's possessory interest, thereby constituting a search.
Likely Implications for Criminal Defendants
As for the question of a "search", it is debatable whether Jones had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the undercarriage of his car. Indeed, people commonly do not lock cars to prevent access to a car's underside, or store items under the car in order to keep them out of public view. However, owners certainly do not expect people to look under their cars, except in rare circumstances (i.e. looking for dropped keys, coins, etc., making repairs, towing a car). If the owner returned to their car to find someone (even the police) looking under their car, he or she would likely feel some sense of personal violation, and it is far-fetched to believe that car owners readily invite others to look under their vehicles. More importantly, federal agents were not responding to a bomb threat, and there was no imminent threat to public safety that would justify such a search. As such, it is unlikely that the Court will find that the search was reasonable in this instance.
Conversely, the Court may not see the "affixing" as a seizure considering that the device does not affect the owner's ability to operate, control or manipulate the vehicle. Instead, it allows the government to monitor the vehicle's whereabouts in the same manner as the owner would, should it be stolen by someone else. This is not to suggest that the police should have free reign to follow suspected criminals, but the infringement one's possessory interest in a vehicle is quite different from violating one's property interests in the same.
If both questions cannot be answered in the affirmative, it is unlikely that the Court will find that this form of GPS tracking will be allowed under the Fourth Amendment.
If the Court decides otherwise, it is certainly possible that Congress would enact further privacy restrictions to protect citizens from Fourth Amendment intrusions. Supreme Court blogger Orin Kerr noted in a recent post a number of laws passed in response to rejected Fourth Amendment claims, most notably:
Right to Financial Privacy Act - Enacted to protect the privacy of bank records after the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment did not protect such records in 1976.
Privacy Protection Act of 1980 - Passed by Congress granting the press special protections against searches and seizures after the Supreme Court declined to do so in a 1978 case.
The Court is set to decide the case next year. While a number of issues are undecided, one thing is certain: the landscape of government surveillance will change substantially with the Court's decision.
Article provided by Rush & Gransee, L.C.
Visit us at www.southtexaslawfirm.com/CM/Custom/TOCCriminalDefense.asp
---
Press release service and press release distribution provided by http://www.24-7pressrelease.com |
|
|
Press Release Contact Information:
FL Web Advantage
|
|
|
|
|
| GOVERNMENT ARCHIVE SEARCH |
|
|
| |
|
|
Advertise With Us |
About Us |
Contact Us