4A Case - Unanimous Decision

[Al Norris]

I think we are all aware that the 4A has been on "life-support" for some time now.

This morning, the SCOTUS issued a 34 page 9-0 opinion that gave the 4A a much need transfusion!

The case, U.S. v. Antione Jones (10-1259), was filed for certiorari on Feb 2, 2011. Cert was granted on Jun 27, 2011. Oral Arguments were held on Nov. 8, 2011 and the decision was released this morning, Jan 23, 2012.

Question presented: Whether the government violated respondent's Fourth Amendment rights by installing the GPS tracking device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent.

There were 12 Amicus Briefs filed, of which 11 were for the Respondent (Jones) and 1 Amicus for the Petitioner (Government).

Background, from the Syllabus:

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.

OK. The guy is a scumbag, YES! But the Government wrongly violated his 4A rights. So the District Court found, but only in part. The DCCA found the defendants 4A rights were violated in toto. The Government appealed to the SCOTUS, who agreed with the DCCA.

The Court was split on its reasoning. The Opinion of the Court was written by Justice Scalia and joined by C.J. Roberts, Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Sotomayor. A concurring Opinion was written by Justice Sotomayor. Another concurring Opinion was written by Justice Alito and joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan.

“The government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.”

However, Justice Alito has this to say:

“The use of longer term G.P.S. monitoring in investigations of most offenses, impinges on expectations of privacy.”

So we have 4 Justices that see this as a privacy issue, based on the length of the surveillance and 4 who see this as a property issue.

That leaves Justice Sotomayor, who joined with the majority, yet filed her own Opinion:

More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. E.g., Smith, 442 U. S., at 742; United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435, 443 (1976). This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks. People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers; the URLs that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers; and the books, groceries, and medications they purchase to online retailers. Perhaps, as JUSTICE ALITO notes, some people may find the “tradeoff” of privacy for convenience “worthwhile,” or come to accept this “diminution of privacy” as “inevitable,” post, at 10, and perhaps not. I for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the Government of a list of every Web site they had visited in the last week, or month, or year. But whatever the societal expectations, they can attain constitutionally protected status only if our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence ceases to treat secrecy as a prerequisite for privacy. I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection. See Smith, 442 U. S., at 749 (Marshall, J., dissenting) (“Privacy is not a discrete commodity, possessed absolutely or not at all. Those who disclose certain facts to a bank or phone company for a limited business purpose need not assume that this information will be released to other persons for other purposes”); see also Katz, 389 U. S., at 351–352 (“[W]hat [a person] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected”).

This tells me that Justice Sotomayor joined the majority because it was a baseline holding, but actually agreed with the minority that there were more protections involved than the property issue.

All in all, there is hope that as other 4A cases come before the Court, the concerns of property and privacy will be given a better standing than they have in the immediate past. Expect Justice Alito's Opinion to be cited in other cases.

 

[kraigwy]

Read that this morning. Hope it doesn't apply to Grandpa's ability to track granddaughter's cell phone.

When she's on trips I like to keep track of her whereabouts encase something happens.

 

[Tom Servo]

Hope it doesn't apply to Grandpa's ability to track granddaughter's cell phone.

The ruling addresses the government's powers in respect to the citizenry. Also, the rights of minors are subject to looser scrutiny than those of adults.

Nonetheless, a surprising and heartening decision.

 

[Musketeer]

Thank goodness some level of sanity remains with the 4th Amendment. With NYC and other municipalities looking to use technologies to see through clothing hopefully this will send a message.

 

[scpapa]

"Hope it doesn't apply to Grandpa's ability to track granddaughter's cell phone."



The 4A restricts the government; citizens cannot violate the 4th as they are not the gubmint.

Rick

 

[ltc444]

Following is a post I placed on FOX News DISQUS.

"The Court acted properly. Hopefully, they will address no knock laws and the numerous other devices Law Enforcement Agencies use to circumvent the Requirements for probable cause and warrentless searchs."

I also would like to see the requirements for Miranda Warnings to become stricter.