Jump to content

United States v. Jones (2012)

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anthony (talk | contribs) at 15:25, 26 May 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"United States v. Jones" redirects here. For other cases, see United States v. Jones (disambiguation).
United States v. Antoine Jones
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 8, 2011
Decided January 23, 2012
Full case nameUnited States v. Antoine Jones
Docket no.10-1259
Citations565 U.S. (more)
132 S. Ct. 945, 565 US __, 181 L. Ed. 2d 911
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
PriorMotion to suppress evidence rejection, 451 F.Supp.2d 71 (D.D.C. 2006); motion for reconsideration denied, 511 F.Supp.2d 74 (D.D.C. 2007); reversed sub nom. United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010); rehearing en banc denied, 625 F.3d 766 (2010); certiorari granted, 564 U.S. ___ (2011)
Holding
The Government's attachment of the GPS device to the vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. DC Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityScalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Sotomayor
ConcurrenceSotomayor
ConcurrenceAlito, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. IV

United States v. Jones, 565 US ___, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012), is a 2012 Supreme Court of the United States case regarding government's installation and prolonged use of a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device.[1] Without a warrant, the government installed a GPS device on the suspect's car and continuously monitored that vehicle for 28 days.[2] Although the Court asked parties to address whether "the warrantless use of a tracking device on respondent's vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment," the Court's ruling was narrower than its question presented.[3] On January 23, 2012, the Supreme Court unanimously held 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'" under the Fourth Amendment.[4] The court did not address whether such a search would be unreasonable and therefore a violation of the Fourth Amendment.[5]

Although the court unanimously agreed on the judgment of the case, the justices split 5-4 about whether to consider governmental trespass upon private property when determining a Fourth Amendment violation or to solely rely on whether the government violated an individual's "reasonable expectation of privacy." Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the majority opinion of the Court, viewing the government's actions of installing a GPS device as a trespass on private property, thus constituting a "search" when combined with that device's monitoring (Roberts, J., Kennedy, A., Thomas, C., and Sotomayor, S. joined).[6] Scalia insisted that the court did not need to address whether the government violated the suspect's reasonable expectation of privacy.[7] Justice Samuel Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment only, arguing that Scalia's trespass argument was too narrow and potentially obsolete in the electronic age.[8] Instead, he would hold that long term GPS monitoring violates an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, and therefore constitutes a Fourth Amendment "search." (Ginsburg, R.B., Breyer, S., and Kagan, E. joined).[9] Justice Sonya Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, agreeing with Scalia's argument about governmental trespass.[10] Even though she agreed with Scalia's holding, she also agreed with Alito's argument about the reasonable expectation of privacy, and expanded upon the dangers of technology's encroachment upon an individual's privacy.[11]

Background

Police Investigation and Criminal Trial

Antoine Jones owned a nightclub in the District of Columbia; Lawrence Maynard managed the club. In 2004, a joint Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Metropolitan Police Department task force began investigating Jones and Maynard for narcotics violations.[12] During the course of the investigation a Global Positioning System (GPS) device was installed on Jones's Jeep Grand Cherokee[13] without a valid warrant.[14] This device tracked his movements 24 hours a day for four weeks.[15] The FBI arrested Jones in late 2005, at which time Jones was represented by prominent criminal defense attorney A. Eduardo Balarezo of Washington, D.C. Balarezo filed multiple motions on Jones' behalf, including the motion to suppress the GPS data. This motion formed the basis for Jones' appeals. The government tried Jones for the first time in late 2006, and after a trial lasting over a month, a federal jury deadlocked on the conspiracy charge and acquitted him of multiple other counts. The government retried Jones in late 2007, and in January 2008 the jury returned a guilty verdict on one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine and 50 or more grams of cocaine base.[16] He was sentenced to life in prison.[17]

Appeal

Jones argued that his conviction should be overturned because the use of the GPS tracker violated the Fourth Amendment's unreasonable search and seizure clause.[18] In August 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned Jones's conviction, holding that the police action was a search because it violated Jones's reasonable expectation of privacy.[19] The court's decision was the subject of significant legal debate.[20][21] In June 2011, the Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari to resolve two questions. The first question, briefed by the parties in their initial petition for certiorari was "Whether the warrantless use of a tracking device on respondent's vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment." The second question, which the Court directed the parties to brief in addition to the initial question, was "Whether the government violated respondent's Fourth Amendment rights by installing the GPS tracking device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent"[22]

Oral Arguments

Deputy Solicitor General Michael R. Dreeben[23] began his argument for the United States by noting that information revealed to the world (i.e. movement on a public road) is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.[24] Dreeben cited United States v. Knotts as an example where police were allowed to use a device known as a "beeper" that allows the tracking of a car from a short distance away.[24] Chief Justice Roberts distinguished the current case from Knotts, saying that using a beeper still took "a lot of work" whereas a GPS device allows the police to "sit back in the station ... and push a button whenever they want to find out where the car is."[25]

Justice Scalia then redirected the discussion to whether installing the device was an unreasonable search and seizure. Scalia argued that "when that device is installed against the will of the owner of the car on the car, that is unquestionably a trespass and thereby rendering the owner of the car not secure in his effects... against an unreasonable search and seizure."[26] Dreeben argued that it was a trespass, but in United States v. Karo there was also a trespass and, according to Dreeben, the Court held that it "made no difference because the purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to protect privacy interests and meaningful interference [with possessions], not to cover all technical trespasses."[27]

During oral arguments, Justice Alito stated that people's use of technology is changing what the expectation of privacy is for the courts. "You know, I don't know what society expects and I think it's changing. Technology is changing people's expectations of privacy. Suppose we look forward 10 years, and maybe 10 years from now 90 percent of the population will be using social networking sites and they will have on average 500 friends and they will have allowed their friends to monitor their location 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, through the use of their cell phones. Then — what would the expectation of privacy be then?"[28]

Ruling

On January 23, 2012, the Supreme Court held 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'" under the Fourth Amendment.[29][30] Some wrongly interpreted the Court as holding that the police actions were unconstitutional when "not obtaining an extended search warrant before attaching a tracking device to a drug suspect's car."[31] While the majority held that the installation of a GPS device followed by its tracking was a Fourth Amendment search, it declined to say whether that search was unreasonable and required a warrant.[32] The justices split 5-4 on the reasoning and the breadth of the judgment. Opinions written by Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito were based on different grounds and each had total of four justices directly behind it. In a separate opinion, Justice Sonya Sotomayor agreed with parts of both opinions, but officially joined Scalia, making his opinion decisive.[33][34][35]

Scalia

Justice Antonin Scalia authored the majority opinion. He cited a line of cases dating back as far as 1886 when arguing that trespass or physical intrusion of private property has been considered as the basis of determining whether a "search" had occurred under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.[36] Scalia conceded that following Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), where electronic eavesdropping in a public telephone booth was ruled to be a search, the determination deviated from the property based approach and was instead based on violation of a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy".[37] However, he also cited numerous post-Katz cases to argue that reliance on trespass to determine whether the Fourth Amendment was violated had not been abandoned.[38] In response to Alito's concurrence's criticisms, Scalia emphasized that the Fourth Amendment must provide at a minimum the level of protection as when it was adopted. Furthermore, consideration of trespass does not exclude consideration of expectation of privacy. The latter is to be considered when determining if a search occurred in a situation where there was no governmental trespass.[39] Since government's installation of a GPS device unto defendant's car was trespass, consideration of the reasonable expectation of privacy in all of his movements was not necessary.[40]

Alito

In his concurring opinion, Justice Alito argued against the majority's reliance on trespass under modern circumstances. Specifically, he argued that the original, trespass-based meaning of "search" under the Fourth Amendment did not apply to electronic situations like the one that occurred in the case.[41] He further argued that following the doctrine changes in Katz, technical trespass leading to the gathering of evidence was "neither necessary nor sufficient to establish a constitutional violation."[42]

In regards to "reasonable expectation of privacy," Alito was one of four justices of his opinion that thought that continuous monitoring of every single movement of an individual's car for 28 days violated the expectation of privacy and thus constituted a search. Alito explained that before GPS and similar electronic technology, a month long surveillance of an individual's every move would have been exceptionally demanding and costly, requiring a tremendous amount of resources and people. As a result, society's expectations were, and still are, that such total and long time surveillance would not be undertaken and an individual would not think that it could occur to him or her.[43]

In regards to continuous monitoring for a short period of time, the four justices would rely on Supreme Court's earlier case of United States v. Knotts and decline to find a violation of the expectation of privacy.[43] In Knotts, a case from 1983, a short distance signal beeper in the defendant's car was tracked during a single trip for less than a day. The Court ruled that a person traveling on public roads has no expectation of privacy in his movements, because the vehicle's starting point, direction, stops, or final destination could be seen by anyone else on the road.[44]

Sotomayor

Justice Sonya Sotomayor was alone in her concurring opinion. She was the fifth justice to concur with Scalia's opinion, making it decisive.[10] "As the majority's opinion makes clear," she noted, "Katz's reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test augmented, but did not displace or diminish, the common-law trespassory test that preceded it."[45] However, even though Sotomayor did not sign Alito's opinion, she made it apparent that she agreed with his expectation of privacy reasoning regarding long term surveillance. She went even further, and questioned the constitutionality of short term GPS surveillance. For example, even during short term monitoring, cell phone installed GPS technology can allow tracking of every movement of an individual and hence reveal completely private destinations like psychiatrist or plastic surgeon.[11] She distinguished Knotts, reminding that Knotts itself stated that a different principle may apply in situations where for 24 hours, every movement is completely monitored.[46]

In conclusion

It must be pointed out that although this ruling was only based on the government committing trespass, because of Alito's and Sotomayor's concurring opinions it is clear that at least 5 out of the Court's 9 justices, which would be a majority, would find that a search had occurred in an identical situation but without trespass. If for example a case came up where for 28 days the government continuously monitored a car's movement using the now common, factory installed GPS device, it is very likely that the Court would find that due to the long term GPS surveillance that occurred an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy had been violated.

While the court held that the installation of a GPS tracking device was a Fourth Amendment search, the majority of the court declined to say whether that search was unreasonable and required a warrant.[35][47]

Walter E. Dellinger III, the former U.S. Solicitor General and the attorney who represented the defendant, said the decision was "a signal event in Fourth Amendment history".[13]

After the decision

Subsequent to the Supreme Court decision, the parties have begun to prepare for retrial. During the investigation, the government obtained cell site location data with a 2703(d) order under the Stored Communications Act but did not use the evidence because they also had the more reliable GPS data.[20] Since it will now be used in the new trial, Jones has filed a motion to suppress the cell site data.[20]

After the case was remanded to the District Court of Washington D.C., Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle ruled on December 14, 2012 that the government could use the cell site data against Jones.[48] The Jones III trial began on January 25, 2013[49] after Mr Jones rejected 2 plea offers of 15 to 22 years with credit for time served.[50] On March 4, 2013,[51] a mistrial was declared with the jury evenly split. Mr Jones had represented himself at trial [52] in a noteworthy opening statement.[53] The Government anticipated a fourth trial.[54][55]. On May 1 2013, Jones accepted a plea bargain of 15 years with credit for time served. [56] [57]

Public opinion summary

According to a nationwide poll of 855 registered United States voters conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind in December 2011, a sizable majority of those polled (73%) concurred that an adequate warrant must be issued in order for the police to place a GPS tracking device on a suspect's car. Just 22% of voters believed that the whereabouts of a car are public, and "using of a tracking device saves the expense of detectives following a car."[58]

In short, the Supreme Court of the United States is in agreement with the polled voters in this case. Dr. Bruce Peabody, professor of political science at FDU, and editor of The Politics of Judicial Independence commented on the results: "Unlike so many constitutional issues, the GPS case is one where the Court's preferences - and the public's - are unified and clear...The consensus among the public and members of the Supreme Court suggests that even our bitterly divided Congress can find common ground on legislation that will further protect privacy rights in the 21st century." [58]

The study also noted, however, that Democrats were more likely than Republicans to agree that a warrant is needed. Democrats favored a warrant by a margin of 78%-17% while Republicans by 67%-26%. Voters were polled on the question before the Supreme Court issued the decision.[58]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ "UNITED STATES v. JONES" (PDF). United States Supreme Court. Retrieved 23 October 2012.
  2. ^ "United States v. Jones" (PDF). Syllabus p. 1.
  3. ^ Supreme Court of the United States (2011). "United States v. Jones (Questions Presented)" (PDF). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  4. ^ "United States v. Jones" (PDF). Majority p. 3.
  5. ^ "United States v. Jones" (PDF). Majority pp. 3, 12. For a detailed discussion of this point see: Goldstein, Tom (30 January 2012). "Why Jones is still less of a pro-privacy decision than most thought". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 21 September 2012.
  6. ^ "United States v. Jones" (PDF). Syllabus p. 2, Majority p. 3.
  7. ^ "United States v. Jones" (PDF). Majority p. 12.
  8. ^ "United States v. Jones" (PDF).Alito's concurrence pp. 2-6.
  9. ^ "United States v. Jones" (PDF).Alito's concurrence pp. 1,13.
  10. ^ a b "United States v.Jones" (PDF). Sotomayor's concurrence, p. 1.
  11. ^ a b "United States v.Jones" (PDF). Sotomayor's concurrence, p. 3.
  12. ^ United States v. Maynard, Opinion p. 16 "Jones owned and Maynard managed the "Levels" nightclub in the District of Columbia. In 2004 an FBI Metropolitan Police Department Safe Streets Task Force began investigating the two for narcotics violations."
  13. ^ a b Bravin, Jess, "Justices Rein In Police on GPS Trackers", The Wall Street Journal, January 24, 2012. Retrieved 2012-01-24.
  14. ^ United States v. Maynard, Opinion p. 38, "The police had obtained a warrant to install the GPS device in D.C. only, but it had expired before they installed it — which they did in Maryland."
  15. ^ United States v. Maynard, Opinion p. 3, "...tracking [Jones's] movements 24 hours a day for four weeks with a GPS device [the police] had installed on his Jeep..."
  16. ^ United States v. Maynard, Opinion p. 4, " the Government filed another superseding indictment charging Jones, Maynard, and a few co-defendants with a single count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine and 50 or more grams of cocaine base. A joint trial of Jones and Maynard began in November 2007 and ended in January 2008, when the jury found them both guilty. "
  17. ^ United States v. Jones, Petition for a Writ of Certiorari p. 2, "respondent was convicted of conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and 50 or more grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841 and 846. The district court sentenced respondent to life imprisonment."
  18. ^ United States v. Maynard, Opinion p. 15-16 "Jones argues his conviction should be overturned because the police violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches by tracking his movements 24 hours a day for four weeks with a GPS device they had installed on his Jeep without a valid warrant."
  19. ^ United States v. Maynard, Opinion p. 16 "As explained below, we hold Knotts does not govern this case and the police action was a search because it defeated Jones‘s reasonable expectation of privacy."
  20. ^ a b c Justin P. Webb, Cybercrime Review (November 29, 2012). "Highlighted Paper: Orin Kerr, The Mosaic Theory of the Fourth Amendment". Cite error: The named reference "Cybercrime Review" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  21. ^ Justin P. Webb (December 1, 2011). "Car-ving Out Notions of Privacy: The Impact of GPS Tracking and Why Maynard is a Move in the Right Direction".
  22. ^ United States v. Jones, Docket, "Jun 27 2011 Petition GRANTED In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether the government violated respondent's Fourth Amendment rights by installing the GPS tracking device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent."
  23. ^ United States v. Jones (Oral Argument Transcript) p. 1
  24. ^ a b United States v. Jones (Oral Argument Transcript) p. 3
  25. ^ United States v. Jones (Oral Argument Transcript) p. 4
  26. ^ United States v. Jones (Oral Argument Transcript) p. 7
  27. ^ United States v. Jones (Oral Argument Transcript) p. 8
  28. ^ United States v. Jones (Oral Argument Transcript) p. 44
  29. ^ "United States v. Jones" (PDF). Majority p.3.
  30. ^ Romm, Tony (23 July 2012). "Supreme Court: GPS location tracking qualifies as search". POLITICO.com. Retrieved 14 July 2012.
  31. ^ Bill Mears (January 23, 2012). "Justices rule against police, say GPS surveillance requires search warrant". CNN.
  32. ^ "United States v. Jones" (PDF). Majority pp. 3, 12. For a detailed discussion of this point see: Goldstein, Tom (30 January 2012). "Why Jones is still less of a pro-privacy decision than most thought". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 21 September 2012.
  33. ^ Liptak, Adam (23 January 2012). "Justices Say GPS Tracker Violated Privacy Rights". The New York Times. Retrieved 14 July 2012.
  34. ^ Rosen, Rebecca J. (23 July 2012). "Why the Jones Supreme Court Ruling on GPS Tracking Is Worse Than It Sounds". The Atlantic. Retrieved 14 July 2012.
  35. ^ a b Kravets, David (23 January 2012). "Supreme Court Court Rejects Willy-Nilly GPS Tracking". Wired.com. Retrieved 14 July 2012.
  36. ^ "United States v. Jones" (PDF). Majority pp. 4-5.
  37. ^ "United States v. Jones" (PDF). Majority p. 5.
  38. ^ "United States v. Jones" (PDF). Majority pp. 5-7.
  39. ^ "United States v. Jones" (PDF). Majority pp. 10-12.
  40. ^ "United States v. Jones" (PDF). Majority pp. 12.
  41. ^ "United States v.Jones" (PDF). Alito's concurrence, pp. 2-3.
  42. ^ "United States v.Jones" (PDF). Alito's concurrence, p. 6.
  43. ^ a b "United States v.Jones" (PDF). Alito's concurrence, p. 13.
  44. ^ United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 282 (1983)
  45. ^ "United States v.Jones" (PDF). Sotomayor's concurrence, p. 2.
  46. ^ "United States v.Jones" (PDF). Sotomayor's concurrence, 4*.
  47. ^ Kerr, Orin (23 January 2012). "What Jones Does Not Hold". The Volokh Conspiracy. Retrieved 14 July 2012.
  48. ^ Mike Scarcella, The Blog of Legal Times (December 17, 2012). "Judge Rules for DOJ in Dispute Over Cell Tower Data".
  49. ^ Zapotosky, Matt (1/25/2013). "Accused drug dealer, representing himself, hears prosecutors open their case". Washington Post. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  50. ^ Marimow, Ann (1/16/2013). "Suspected D.C. drug kingpin offered plea deal". Washington Post. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  51. ^ Frommer, Frederic (3/4/2013). "Mistrial declared in 3rd trial of drug conspiracy". US News & World Report (AP). {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  52. ^ Marimow, Ann (1/17/2013). "Suspected D.C. drug kingpin to represent himself at retrial". Washington Post. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  53. ^ Zapotosky, Matt. "Accused D.C. dealer launches his own defense at trial". Washington Post Blog.
  54. ^ Marimow, Ann. "Judge declares mistrial in area drug case". The Washington Post. Retrieved 3/4/2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  55. ^ "Judge Declares Mistrial in Drug Case at Center of Landmark Supreme Court Ruling". Legal Times Blog. Retrieved 3/4/2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  56. ^ WJLA. 1 May 2013 http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/05/antoine-jones-pleads-guilty-accepts-15-years-sentence-88229.html. Retrieved 20 May 2013. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  57. ^ Anderson, Nick (1 May 2013). "Former DC Nightclub owner Antoine Jones sentenced on drug charge". The Washington Post. Retrieved 20 May 2013.
  58. ^ a b c Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind, (January 23, 2012). High Court Agrees with Public in US v Jones: Electronic Tails Need a Warrant. (press release)

References

Further reading

  • Arcila, Fabio, Jr. (2012). "GPS Tracking Out of Fourth Amendment Dead Ends: United States v. Jones and the Katz Conundrum". North Carolina Law Review. 91 (1): 1–59.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Jones_(2012)&oldid=556878108"