US Supreme Court Restricts Government Monitoring Powers

In United States v Jones, the US Supreme Court (Court) unanimously ruled that the act of police in attaching a GPS device to an individual’s vehicle and continuously monitoring its movements on public streets without a warrant violates the individual’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution (Fourth Amendment). (The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures that are not supported by probable cause – see the E-TIPS®mini-article reporting on the oral arguments previously reported in Vol 10, No 10, November 16, 2011). Suspecting Antoine Jones of cocaine trafficking, police obtained a warrant authorizing the installation of a GPS device on his vehicle. However, the device was installed after the expiry of the warrant and was then monitored continuously for four weeks. Based on information obtained from this monitoring, the police later obtained and executed a search warrant and found cash and drugs. Jones was convicted at trial and sentenced to life in prison; however, the appeals court reversed the trial judge’s decision and ruled the evidence inadmissible, finding that the continuous surveillance of the vehicle defeated Jones’ reasonable expectation of privacy (Privacy Rights). On further appeal, the Court unanimously held that the police breached Jones’ Fourth Amendment rights by physically intruding on Jones’ personal property (Property Rights). Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for the Court and Justices Sotomayor and Alito issued separate concurring reasons. The majority opinion ruled that under the Fourth Amendment, Property Rights exist independently of Privacy Rights, and decided the case solely on the basis of Property Rights. The majority did not decide whether the police breached Jones’ Privacy Rights; however, it distinguished Jones in this respect in relation to prior case law. In her concurring reasons, Justice Sotomayor adopted the majority’s finding that the police breached Jones’ Property Rights. She further held that the police breached Jones’ Privacy Rights due to the inherently intrusive nature of GPS monitoring, combined with the police’s lengthy and continuous monitoring of Jones’ vehicle. However, she did not clearly describe the circumstances in which GPS monitoring would be unlawful. The Jones case is illustrative of the challenge facing the judiciary to strike an appropriate balance between preserving individual rights and enabling law enforcement in a world of rapidly changing technologies. Although the Court in Jones struck this balance on the basis of Property Rights, it will be interesting to see how Privacy Rights will factor into the Court’s reasoning in future cases. For a link to the full text of the Court’s reasons for judgment, see: http://tinyurl.com/7o4mngk For an article reporting the Jones case, visit: http://tinyurl.com/77pjz4s Summary by: Darren Hall