United States v Jones: GPS Tracking and the Fourth Amendment

This assignment delves into the landmark case of United States v Jones (2012), where the Supreme Court held that using a GPS device for tracking and monitoring a person's location in public streets is considered a search under the Fourth Amendment. The justices were unanimous in their decision, but split 5-4 on the reasoning behind it. Justice Scalia provided the majority opinion, stating that GPS tracking constitutes a trespass on private property and violates the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' standard established in Katz v United States. This case has significant implications for personal privacy rights and the use of technology to monitor individuals.

Legal Study

Title and Citation
United States v Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012)
Facts
Police were granted a warrant for using GPS device in order to search Jones who was
suspected to be involved in narcotics trafficking. Police failed to comply with the deadline of
the warrant, and they collect evidence against Jones for distributing cocaine.
Issue
Does use of GPS device for tracking and monitoring of the location of the respondent in
public streets comes under the definition of a search as per the Fourth Amendment?
Decision
Attaching and using a GPS location device for tracking is defined as a “search” as per the
Fourth Amendment.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court justices provided a unanimous judgement that use of GPS device for
location tracking constitutes a “search”. However, the justices were split 5-4 based on
deciding the fundamental reasons behind the judgement. Justice Scalia provided majority
opinion that using of GPS for tracking Jones car which comes under the definition of a
personal “effect” clearly constitute as a search since it is defined as the history of government
trespassing on private property in order to obtain information. The “reasonable expectation of
privacy” standard provided in the case of Katz v United States adds to the understanding of
trespassing rather than replacing it.
Separate Opinions
Justice Alito provided concurring opinion by stating that warrantless GPS monitoring
violated the standard of society’s reasonable expectations of privacy. Justice Sotomayor

agreed with both opinions but provided a concurring opinion by stating that capability of new
technology should be considered in the standard of reasonable expectation of privacy.
Analysis
Using a GPS device on a personal “effect” comes under the definition of a search in the
Fourth Amendment, and it complies with the “reasonable expectation of privacy” standard.