The latest installment of the US v. Jones saga has just arrived. In a decision released earlier today, the Supreme Court held that government installation and monitoring of a GPS device on a suspect’s vehicle constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment.
(For a recap on MTTLR’s previous coverage of the case, see two earlier blog entries posted here and here). For those disinclined to navigate away, the Court decided whether the government can engage in prolonged monitoring of a suspect’s vehicle by installing and using a GPS device without a warrant. The lawyers for Antoine Jones argued that the government needs a warrant for such action because it constitutes a Fourth Amendment “search.” The government countered that a warrant is unnecessary because individuals do not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” when driving vehicles on public roads. Therefore, using GPS to track a suspect in public places, even for prolonged periods of time, arguably does not constitute a Fourth Amendment “search.”
Although the Court ultimately sided with Antoine Jones, a majority of the Justices based their decision on a much narrower and unexpected approach. Rather than addressing the government’s prolonged use of the GPS device, five Justices chose instead to resolve the case solely by analyzing its installation. Resurrecting a “common-law trespassory test” to determine whether a search occurred, the Court held that the government committed a search by trespassing upon Jones’ Jeep Grand Cherokee to install the tracking unit. An exciting victory for Antoine Jones and advocates pursuing heightened protection of possessory interests, the decision was far less eventful for those tracking Supreme Court treatment of Fourth Amendment privacy doctrine in relation to privacy-invading technologies. The Court opted to punt instead of attacking the seemingly more pressing issue of how to reconcile the technological advancement with Fourth Amendment protection of “reasonable expectations of privacy.” Unfortunately, with US v. Jones now at a rest, we’ll just have to wait and see what the next case brings.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks