24-Hour Gps Tracking Device

In 2005 Antoine Jones was arrested for drug possession. The police had been able to follow Mr. Jones by attaching a tracking device to the bottom of his car, which they did receive a warrant to do, but only for 10 days and only in DC. The police installed the tracker on the 11th day when the warrant had expired. This device was always on and tracked him for a month. He was convicted, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stated in the 1983 case were a beeper was used to follow a car, but the car had to be followed in the officers view of site and this tracker was always on. (Oyez) The Supreme Court ruled affirmed the D.C Circuit court that installing a 24-hour GPS device without a warrant is considered an unlawful search and seizure …show more content…
When installing the device the police had trespassed against Mr. Jones personal effects. The judges all had different opinions for the same ruling. Justice Alito in a concurring opinion believed that in the passed such operation would have taken time and the resources of a police department. In the age we live in such devices can violate the fourth amendment. In the past short term monitoring would be fine, but long term GPS gathers too much personal information and violates a persons expectation of privacy. Justice Scalia in the majority opinion believed that based on a case from 1886 “physical intrusion, or trespass, into a constitutionally-protected area – in an attempt to find something or to obtain information – was the basis, historically, for determining whether a "search" had occurred under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment” (Law.cornell.edu) This case was not based on properly rights but how the fourth amendment applies to persons expectation of privacy. The placing of this tracker broke persons personal effects and trespassed to obtain information as well it was active on personal property breaching the most protected institution in the fourth