8/17/2019 U.S v Jones digest
1/2
U.S vs. Jones (2012)
• Antoine Jones, owner and operator of a nightclub in
Columbia
came under suspicion of narcotics trafficking.
• Based on information gathered through various
investigative
techniques, police were granted a warrant authorizing use of aG!
tracking device on the Jeep registered to Jones" wife #of
which Jones was the e$clusive driver%
• &he warrant that was issued authorizing the installation
of the
G! in the 'istrict of Columbia was valid for onl( )* da(s
• +n the ))th da(, not in Columbia but in ar(land, agents
installed the G! tracking device on the undercarriage of the
Jeep while it was parked in a public parking lot. And in the
ne$t - da(s, the Government used the G! to track themovements of
the vehicle and even had to replace the batter(
while it was parked again in a different parking lot in
ar(land.• B( satellite, the device established the vehicle"s
location within
/* to )** feet and communicated the location b( cell phone
to
a government computer, rela(ing more than -,*** pages
of data over a -0da( period.
• &he government ultimatel( obtained an indictment
against
Jones which included charges of conspirac( to
distributecocaine.
• Before trial, Jones filed a otion to !uppress 1vidence
obtained thru the G! device. 2t was partl( granted, the data
that was suppressed were those date obtained while the
vehiclewas parked in the garage ad3oining Jone"s residence. 4hile
theremaining data, were admissible.
• &he District Court denied the motion ruled that a
person
traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has
noreasonable e$pectation of privac( in his movements from one
place to another. #5el(ing on 6atz ruling% A hung 3ur( led
to asecond trial, which resulted in a guilt( verdict.
• &he D.C. Circuit Court reversed the conviction,
holding the
admission of evidence obtained b( warrantless use of the G!
device violated the 7ourth Amendment.
ISSUE: 'oes the attachment of a G! tracking device to a
vehicle and
subsequent use of that device to monitor the vehicle"s movements
on
public streets constitute a search or seizure within the
meaning of the7ourth Amendment8 YES
HELD:
(1) !S "tt"ched to vehic#e is " se"rch
• &he 7ourth Amendment $rotects the %ri&ht o' the
$eo$#e to
be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
e''ects against
unreasonable searches and seizures.9
2n this case, b( "tt"chin& the device to the Jee$ , the
officers
encro"ched on " $rotected "re". !tated otherwise, the
Government $hsic"## tres$"ssed on private propert( for
the purpose of obtaining information. Because the ph(sical
trespass was on $ro$ert e*$ress# $rotected + the
,ourth-mendment.
2nstead of using the 6atz reasonable e$pectation privac(
test,
Justice !calia revitalized and then used " common#"/tres$"ssor
test.
• :nder this trespassor( test, it was irrelevant whether Jones
had
a reasonable e$pectation of privac( in data about where his
car
had traveled ; it was enou&h th"t the overnments
tres$"ss
on Joness %e''ect would have constituted a
