Case study on United States v Kebodeaux
CASE BRIEF: UNITED STATES V. JONES2 Case Brief: United States V. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 Joseph W. Barnes, A.S., A.B., M.P.A. December 13, 2018 CROL 687 Case: United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 Case Citation: UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. ANTOINE JONES, 565 U.S. 400, 132 S. Ct. 945, 181 L. Ed. 2d 911, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 1063, 80 U.S.L.W. 4125, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 102, 2012 WL 171117 (Supreme Court of the United States January 23, 2012, Decided). Retrieved from https://advance-lexis-com.proxy4.athensams.net/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:54SX-56N1-F04K-F0D0-00000-00&context=1516831. Facts of The Case: This case examines whether a GPS tracker attached by law enforcement to a private person’s vehicle constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and requires a warrant. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states, “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” (U.S. Const. amend. IV). Defendant Antoine Jones was a nightclub owner in the District of Columbia. Along with other defendants, Jones came under the scrutiny of law enforcement after being suspected of involvement in drug trafficking[footnoteRef:1]. A multijurisdictional investigation across the District of Columbia, Virginia, Maryland, Texas and North Carolina was conducted. Targets of the investigation included Jones, Adrian Jackson, Michael Huggins, Kevin Holland and Kirk Carter. During their investigation, law enforcement authorities gathered evidence resulting in a multi-count indictment including several charges related to the trafficking of cocaine or cocaine base. [1: The defendants were suspected of engaging in drug trafficking across several states and Mexico. ] The indictment was based on several key pieces of evidence. During the course of the investigation, the evidence was obtained from various sources including searches, wiretaps, cell phone tower dumps, text messages, physical surveillance, and GPS tracking. The investigation uncovered evidence across multiple locations in the investigation. In North Carolina, officers seized $67,115 from a vehicle owned by Jones but driven by Maynard. A residence in Fort Meade, Maryland was searched and found to contain over $800,000 in cash, 97 kilos of cocaine and 3 kilos of crack cocaine. The indictment alleged that the illegal drug activity occurred between 2003 and 2005. Motions in the case were filed in United States v. Jones, 451 F. Supp. 2d 71 (D.D.C. 2006) in the District Court, District of Columbia. Jones’ argued that several elements of the case should be suppressed. First, Jones argued for evidence from the wiretaps and electronic communications intercepts should be suppressed due to a lack of probable cause. Second, he argued for suppression of the evidence seized from his home and his nightclub. Third, he argued for the cash seizure from his vehicle to be suppressed because he argued that the driver lacked the ability to consent to search. Jones’ said that the officer knew the driver was not the owner when he asked for consent. Finally, Jones’ asked for the evidence obtained via GPS tracker attached to his vehicle to be suppressed. The FBI attached a GPS tracker to Jones’ vehicle while it was parked in a public place. For several weeks, the GPS tracker was used to monitor Jones’ movements in the vehicle. The government had obtained a court order to place the tracking device but had placed it outside of the time limits contained in the order and outside of the jurisdiction of the court that had signed the order[footnoteRef:2]. The District Court, District of Columbia denied all of Jones’ request for suppression except for a narrow part of the GPS tracking device. The court ruled that evidence from the GPS tracker could not be used while Jones’ vehicle was parked at his residence[footnoteRef:3]. [2: The court that issued the order for the GPS tracker provided a ten day window for it to be installed but law enforcement failed to do so within the required ten days. ] [3: It was determined that Jones had an expectation of privacy at his residence thus the GPS tracker information was suppressed when the vehicle was at his private residence. ] An appeal of the convictions was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for all of the defendants. The appeal was the case United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544. In the appeal, the court denied the appeals of all defendants except Jones. In the case of Jones, the court suppressed all evidence obtained from the GPS tracker attached to Jones’ vehicle. The court said that the use of a GPS tracker constituted a search and was thus covered by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They determined that the evidence presented at trial was inadequate without the GPS tracker to show that Jones was involved in conspiracy to commit drug trafficking. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals dismissed the charges against Jones due to the suppression of the GPS tracker evidence. The United States government appealed the suppression of evidence to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on the issue of the GPS tracker evidence. An appeal was also filed on behalf of the other defendants but the Supreme Court ultimately denied certiorari on those issues. The case was United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400. Issues: Does the use of a GPS tracker by law enforcement constitute a search? Law enforcement used a GPS tracker attached to Jones car to track his vehicle’s location for almost a full month. While they did possess an expired court order to conduct the surveillance, the tracker was installed outside of the legally allowable time frame and outside of the jurisdiction of the court. What criteria is applied to determine when a search or seizure occurred? The court examined the methodology to be used to determine when an action is deemed a search. What expectation of privacy do citizens have from government intrusion? The court considered whether or not citizens have an expectation of privacy from the government that is protected by the Constitution. If an expectation of privacy is identified, what standard is used to determine when a violation of that privacy occurs? How does government surveillance affect citizens? People have been sounding the alarm about excessive government intrusion into the lives of private citizens since the founding of the United States. It is a natural tendency for people to behave differently if knowingly being observed. Government surveillance has the potential to infringe upon the rights of citizens. Should there be better guidance for the use of technology in the field of law enforcement? The founding fathers could not possibly envision the level of technology that is available to law enforcement organizations today. A reliable light bulb was not invented for almost a century after the drafting of the Constitution. In the last few decades, the technological advancements are astounding. The regulation and proper use of technology by law enforcement within Constitutional constraints is a concern. Decision: In a 9-0 decision in the Jones case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals, District of Columbia. The use of a GPS tracker by law enforcement constitutes a search and as such requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant prior to use. Reasoning: Scalia delivered the majority opinion of the Supreme Court on the Jones case. Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Sotomayor joined the opinion. Scalia provided the following reasoning for the opinion: 1. The government physically occupied Jones’ private property for the purpose of gathering information. 2. The Fourth Amendment has a close connection to people’s property. 3. The Fourth Amendment also creates considerations for privacy from the government and a person’s expectation of privacy must be considered. 4. The Court rejected the argument that Jones’ vehicle was operated on public rights of way and therefore he could not claim an expectation of privacy. 5. The Court rejected the argument that previous rulings in cases involving electronic beepers placed in packages precluded the Court from concluding that the GPS tracker was a search. 6. The Court concluded that attaching a GPS tracker to a vehicle is more significant action than merely examining the exterior of a vehicle in a public place which does not constitute a search. 7. The Court rejected a government argument that the GPS tracker was the equivalent of a search conducted in an open field. The Court concluded that an open field is not construed to be “property” covered by the Fourth Amendment unlike a motor vehicle. 8. The Court notes that the government had probable cause and/or reasonable suspicion to conduct a search using the GPS tracker but failed to raise that argument effectively forfeiting it. 9. The Court observed that it had never engaged in determining whether or not the severity of a criminal offense affected the reasonableness of a search. Separate Opinions: In addition to the majority opinion, two concurring opinions were also filed. Justice Sotomayor joined the majority opinion but also filed a concurring opinion. Sotomayor’s reasoning in the concurring opinion is: 1. The government usurped Jones property without a warrant or his consent for the purpose of gathering information thus invading his privacy. 2. A trespass violation does not have to occur for a search to be unreasonable. 3. With improvement in technology, trespass or intrusion is no longer necessary for government to use electronics to conduct surveillance. Even when no trespass occurs, these technology searches will still be subject to evaluation under Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1967)[footnoteRef:4]. [4: Katz explored the concept of expectation of privacy when a person is in a phone booth. ] 4. GPS surveillance is cheap and detailed. Law enforcement could identify your trips to medical providers, girlfriends and other sensitive places. It is worthy of close scrutiny by the court. 5. Surveillance by the government has a negative affect on personal freedom and may alter the citizen to government relationship. 6. The unlimited use of GPS tracking by the Executive branch should be carefully considered