Supreme Court GPS Tracking Case: Round-up and Resources
Updated February 20, 2012
UNITED STATES v. JONES
615 F. 3d 544, affirmed.
From Cornell University Legal Information Institute [HTML version has links to cited cases]:
- Syllabus [HTML] [PDF]
- Opinion, Scalia [HTML] [PDF]
- Concurrence, Sotomayor [HTML] [PDF]
- Concurrence, Alito [HTML] [PDF]
From the Supreme Court and American Bar Association websites:
- Supreme Court Opinion No. 10-1259, Argued Nov 8, 2011 and Decided January 23, 2012 [PDF]
- Oral Argument Transcript [PDF]
- Merit and Amicus Briefs, American Bar Association, Accessed January 23, 2012
Legislation
In his written opinion, “Alito said the court and Congress should address how expectations of privacy affect whether warrants are required for remote surveillance using electronic methods that do not require the police to install equipment, such as GPS tracking of mobile telephones. Alito noted, for example, that more than 322 million cellphones have installed equipment that allows wireless carriers to track the phones’ locations (ABC News, Jan 23, 2012).” In his article linked below, Robert Gellman provides a nice overview of the complexities of the legislative process for updating privacy legislation after US v. Jones:
- Legislating Privacy after US v. Jones: Can Congress Limit Government Use of New Surveillance Technologies? Robert Gellman, Communia Blog of the Science and Technology Program, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, January 25, 2012
For a list of proposed location privacy legislation as of Fall 2011, visit the home page of Kevin Pomfret’s Centre for Spatial Law and Policy.
Law Review Articles and Essays
- A Reasonableness Approach to Searches After the Jones GPS Tracking Case, Peter Swire, 64 Stan. L. Rev. Online 57 (2012)
- Signal Lost: Is a GPS Tracking System the Same as an Eyeball? Eric Andrew Felleman, 45 Michigan Journal of Law Reform 1 (2011)
- Tied Up in Knotts? GPS Technology and the Fourth Amendment, Renee McDonald Hutchins, 55 UCLA Law Review 1 (2007)
- The Case for the Third-Party Doctrine, Orin Kerr, Michigan Law Review Vol 107, 2009; see also counterpoint Kerr Defends the Third-Party Doctrine, Jim Harper, The Technology Liberation Front, May 30, 2008
- The Fourth Amendment and New Technologies: Constitutional Myths and The Case for Caution, Orin Kerr, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 801, 200
Case Summaries and Commentaries (disclaimer: opinions and analyses are those of the original authors, not all may be accurate)
February 2012
- What Does Jones Mean for the Exclusionary Rule? David Gray, Concurring Opinions, February 10, 2012
- Nader, Onassis, and Jones: Privacy in Public and Limits on the Private Sector Robert Gellman, Communia Blog, Woodrow Wilson Center, February 9, 2012
January 2012
- Kennedy and Szoka on US v Jones by Danielle Citron, Concurring Opinions, January 30, 2012
- The Potentially Profound Implications of US v Jones, Daniel Solove, Concurring Opinions, January 29, 2012
- United States v Jones: A Step-back for Rights, Renee Hutchins, Concurring Opinions, January 29, 2012
- Barry Friedman on US v Jones, Danielle Citron, Concurring Opinions, January 29, 2012
- Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Gerard Magliocca, Concurring Opinions, January 24, 2012
- United States v. Jones: Privacy in Public Space? Piece it all Together and You Get 5. Pricilla Smith, Concurring Opinions, January 24, 2012
- Jones Confounds the Press, Tom Goldstien, SCOTUS Blog, Bloomberg, January 25, 2012
- Legislating Privacy after US v. Jones: Can Congress Limit Government Use of New Surveillance Technologies? Robert Gellman, Communia Blog of the Science and Technology Program, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, January 25, 2012
- Three Thoughts on US v Jones, Margot Kaminski, Concurring Opinions, January 24, 2012
- Jones is a Near-Optimal Result, Paul Ohm, Concurring Opinions, January 24, 2012
- United States v. Jones: Privacy in Public Space? Piece it all Together and You Get 5, Priscilla Smith, Concurring Opinions, January 24, 2012
- Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Gerard Magliocca, Concurring Opinions, January 24, 2012
- Why Scalia is Right in Jones: Magic Places and One-Way Ratchets, Derek Bambauer, January 24, 2012
- Here’s Why You Should Care (A Lot) About the Supreme Court’s GPS Ruling, Neal Ungerleader, Fast Company, January 25, 2012
- Searching for Clarification: United States v. Jones and Searches Under the Fourth Amendment, Reasonably Prudent: Tax, Technology and the Law Blog, January 24, 2012
- All Hail Samuel Alito, Privacy Champion Extraordinaire, Jeffery Rosen, The New Republic, January 24, 2012
- U. S. Supreme Court Unanimously Rule that GPS Installation and Tracking of a Vehicle Constitutes a Search, But The Justices Disagree on Rationale – Are Lines Being Drawn on Privacy Rights and New Technology?, Jeff Neuberger, New Media and Technology Law Blog, January 23, 2012
- A Unanimous Privacy Victory in US v. Jones, Jim Harper and Julian Sanchez [Video Podcast on YouTube], January 23, 2012
- “Jones”ing for a Fourth Amendment Upgrade, Julian Sanchez, Cato Institute, January 23, 2012
- US v. Jones: A Big Privacy Win, Jim Harper, Cato Institute, January 23, 2012
- United States v. Jones is a Near-Optimal Result, Professor Paul Ohm, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy, Freedom to Tinker Blog, January 23, 2012
- The New Doctrine of What Is a Fourth Amendment Search, What Jones Does Not Hold, What’s the Status of The Mosaic Theory After Jones, Why Did Justice Sotomayer Join Scalia’s Majority Opinion in Jones, and Three Questions Raised by the Trespass Test in US v. Jones, Professor Orin Kerr + comments, The Volokh Conspiracy, January 23, 2012
- Daniel Solove and other contributors, Concurring Opinions, January 2012
- Tight Limit on Police GPS Use, Lyle Denniston, SCOTUS Blog, Bloomberg Law, January 23, 2012
- Supreme Court Decision in Warrantless GPS Tracking Case Offers Little Guidance in Consumer Privacy Context, Christopher Wolf, Hogan and Lovells, January 24, 2012
- Supreme Court: GPS Location Tracking Qualifies as Search, Tony Romm, Politico, January 23, 2012
- What Does The Supreme Court Ruling Against Warrantless GPS Tracking Mean? Carl Franzen, TPM, January 23, 2012
- Supreme Court Rules That GPS Is A Search, But That’s About All, Doug Mataconis, Beyond the Beltway, January 23, 2012
- Overnight Tech: Lawmakers Weigh in on High Court’s GPS Ruling, Brenden Sasso, The Hill, January 23, 2012
- Supreme Court Rules in Highly Watched GPS Case, John Moe, MarketPlace, January 24, 2012
- Alito v. Scalia: Two Conservative Supreme Court Justices Brawl Over Technology and Privacy, Dahlia Lithwick, Slate, January 23, 2012
- U.S. Supreme Court decides government use of GPS for monitoring constitutes search under the 4th Amendment, Alex Howard, Gov Fresh, January 23, 2012
- A Supreme Court Justice’s Radical Proposal Regarding The Privacy of Your Google Searches, Facebook Account & Phone Records, Kashmir Hill, Forbes, January 23, 2012
- Supreme Court Deals Blow To Government Surveillance, Saying Warrant Needed For GPS Tracking, Kashmir Hill, Forbes, January 23, 2012
- Supreme Court Rejects Willy-nilly GPS Tracking, David Kravets, Wired, January 23, 2012
- Supreme Court holds warrantless GPS tracking unconstitutional, Timothy B. Lee, Ars Technica, January 23, 2012
- Jones a Victory for Privacy but Only Beginning of Fixing Fourth Amendment Doctrine, Berin Szoka, TechFreedom, January 23, 2012
- Supreme Court Requires Warrant for GPS Tracking, Center for Technology and Democracy, January 23, 2012
- Justices Say GPS Tracker Violated Privacy Right, Adam Liptak, New York Times, January 23, 2012
- What Does the Supreme Court GPS Ruling Mean for Privacy? Jennifer Valentino-DeVries, Digits, Wall Street Journal, January 23, 2012
- Why the Jones Supreme Court Case Is Worse Than It Sounds, Rebecca Rosen, The Atlantic, January 23, 2012
- Supreme Court Rules Government Violated Privacy Rights in GPS Tracking Case, ACLU, January 23, 2012
- EPIC US V Jones Analysis
- CDT Amicus Brief
- CDT Summary of Supreme Court Case, Does GPS Tracking Require a Warrant?
Older posts
- US v. Jones: Where Privacy, Technology and the Constitution Collide, John Whitehead [Video Podcast on YouTube], Rutherford Institute, October 10, 2011
- US v. Jones, Professor Douglas Godfrey, IIT Kent College of Law [Video on YouTube], OyezToday.com, November 7, 2011
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
UNITED STATES v. JONES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 10–1259. Argued November 8, 2011—Decided January 23, 2012
The Government obtained a search warrant permitting it to install a Global-Positioning-System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle registered to respondent Jones’s wife. The warrant authorized installation in the District of Columbia and within 10 days, but agents installed the device on the 11th day and in Maryland. The Government then tracked the vehicle’s movements for 28 days. It subsequently secured an indictment of Jones and others on drug trafficking conspiracy charges. The District Court suppressed the GPS data obtained while the vehicle was parked at Jones’s residence, but held the remaining data admissible because Jones had no reasonable expectation of privacy when the vehicle was on public streets. Jones was convicted. The D. C. Circuit reversed, concluding that admission of the evidence obtained by warrantless use of the GPS device violated the Fourth Amendment.
Held: 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. Pp. 3–12.
(a) The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Here, the Government’s physical intrusion on an “effect” for the purpose of obtaining information constitutes a “search.” This type of encroachment on an area enumerated in the Amendment would have been considered a search within the meaning of the Amendment at the time it was adopted. Pp. 3–4.
(b) This conclusion is consistent with this Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, which until the latter half of the 20th century was tied to common-law trespass. Later cases, which have deviated from that exclusively property-based approach, have applied the analysis of Justice Harlan’s concurrence in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, which said that the Fourth Amendment protects a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy,” id., at 360. Here, the Court need not address the Government’s contention that Jones had no “reasonable expectation of privacy,” because Jones’s Fourth Amendment rights do not rise or fall with the Katz formulation. At bottom, the Court must “assur[e] preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.” Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 34. Katz did not repudiate the understanding that the Fourth Amendment embodies a particular concern for government trespass upon the areas it enumerates. The Katz reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test has been added to, but not substituted for, the common-law trespassory test. See Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165, 176; Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U. S. 56, 64. United States v. Knotts, 460 U. S. 276, and United States v. Karo, 468 U. S. 705—post-Katz cases rejecting Fourth Amendment challenges to “beepers,” electronic tracking devices representing another form of electronic monitoring—do not foreclose the conclusion that a search occurred here. New York v. Class, 475 U. S. 106, and Oliver v. United States, 466 U. S. 170, also do not support the Government’s position. Pp. 4–12.
(c) The Government’s alternative argument—that if the attachment and use of the device was a search, it was a reasonable one—is forfeited because it was not raised below. P. 12. 615 F. 3d 544, affirmed.
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN
Trackbacks / Pingbacks