Antoine Jones owed a nightclub in Washington DC, and was
suspected of selling cocaine. The New York Times reports, the police installed a Global Positioning System (GPS) on
his vehicle (without a valid warrant), and then tracked his movements for
almost a month. After the police had
enough evidence, they arrested Mr. Jones. He was convicted on conspiring to
sell cocaine and sentenced to life in prison.
Jones’s case was appealed and was overturned by the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. They thought that the information the police
had collected using the GPS without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment, according to Legal Information Institute describes, "The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized."
This case went to the Supreme Court on
November 8, 2011 and was decided last Monday on January 23, 2012. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the police
violated the Constitution when they installed a GPS in Mr. Jones’s car and
tracked him for 28 days without a warrant.
Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, justifies his ruling by saying,
“…the governments 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.”
This ruling is going to have a huge
impact on policing. Anytime the police
want to track a suspect using a Global Positioning Device, they will have to
obtain a search warrant before they can track them. The majority of justices on this issue also
believe the way in which the government obtains video surveillance from public
places, roadside assistance devices, and location data from cell phone towers
is unsettling.
In my opinion, the Supreme Courts ruling
on the United States v. Jones case is the correct ruling. The Fourth Amendment is in place to ensure
our privacy from the government, and not have them do unreasonable search and
seizures of our private property without a warrant. Mr. Jones’s car was his private
property. The police put a tracking
device on his car (private property) and “searched” his whereabouts without a
warrant. Clearly violating the Fourth Amendment.
True, the police fulfilled their duties
on catching, collecting evidence against Jones, and protecting the public from
a drug dealer, but they did it unlawfully.
The police should have found probably cause and attained a search
warrant before placing the GPS on Mr. Jones’s car and tracking him.
If you aren’t against the government
tracking a suspect’s vehicle, here is another scenario for you. If the police suspect you for illegally
downloading movies, songs, information, etc., would you like it if the
government looked through all of the Web sites you have visited in the last
year? Even if you hadn’t done anything
wrong? Supreme Justice Sotomayor says
that people would not want the government to see that sort of information
because it is an invasion of their privacy.
Just like it is to have the government track your car without a warrant.
I completely agree that this is an invasion of privacy. I would not want the government following my whereabouts without me knowing about it. Personally, if the government invaded my own space without my knowledge, I would be furious. I am glad the Supreme Court made the right decision in this man's case. Yes he did break the law with cocaine, but that does not give the government the right to do such a thing. Warrants are in place for a reason. Just because the government is "the government" it doesn't mean they can throw out their own rules. The Fourth Amendment was put in place for this particular example and it should be followed by the government.
ReplyDeleteEven though the police stopped a man from illegally selling drugs and protecting the public, the fourth amendment was not followed or enforced. We as U.S. citizens are protected by the fourth amendment and to have an invasion of privacy without probably cause or a warrant by the government should not happen. There were other ways to catch this man then placing a GPS in his car unlawfully without a warrant. If the government was allowed to search or track websites, phone conversations, cars, or anything else they wanted without probably cause or warrant, the people would have no privacy. I agree with the decision from the Supreme Court that the GPS was an invasion of privacy. The only positive I see in this scenario is that the police stopped this man from illegal actions but I believe the government went about it the wrong way. Any time the police want to track a car using a GPS they have to have a warrant, as it should be.
ReplyDelete