• News
• Newsletters
• All Archives

In a decision issued January 23, 2012, the United States Supreme Court held that law enforcement may not install a GPS device to a suspect’s vehicle and use the GPS device to monitor the vehicle’s movements without a warrant.

The Facts:
The FBI and District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department conducted a joint investigation of Antoine Jones, the owner and operator of a D.C. nightclub, suspected of trafficking narcotics. After completing significant surveillance and investigation, the Government applied to the U.S. District Court for a warrant authorizing the use of a GPS tracking device on Jones’s vehicle. The Court issued the warrant, authorizing installation of the device to be done within 10 days.
Governmental agents installed the GPS tracking device on the undercarriage of the vehicle while it was in a public parking lot in Maryland, not D.C., and on the 11th day, not within the 10 days specified on the warrant. The Government then tracked the vehicle’s movements for the following 28 days.
After the surveillance concluded, Jones, along with several others, was indicted on multiple counts, including conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and 50 grams or more of cocaine base. The District Court suppressed the GPS data that indicated the vehicle was parked at his residence, but admitted the data showing the vehicles other movements because “[a] person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another.” The jury found Jones guilty and he was sentenced to life in prison. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction because of the admission of the warrantless GPS data, which it held violated the Fourth Amendment.

The Opinion:
The Supreme Court held that the Government’s installation of a GPS device to a suspected drug trafficker’s vehicle and the use of the GPS device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. In order to conduct a lawful search, law enforcement must have a warrant, unless an exception applies. No exception applied in this case. 
The Government argued that no search occurred because Jones did not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the undercarriage of the vehicle and in the locations of the vehicle on public roads. The Court did not address these arguments, however, because the Court found that there was a violation at the onset by physically occupying Jones’s private property for the purpose of obtaining information. The Court stated that such a physical intrusion has been considered a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment since it was adopted.
Here, the Government installed a GPS tracking device on Jones’s vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent. Then, the Government proceeded to track the vehicle’s movement for four weeks, using this data to convict Jones for conspiracy. The Court ruled that the “officers encroached on a protected area” by attaching the GPS to the vehicle and that this placement violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection again unreasonable search and seizure.
How will this impact law enforcement practices?
While this decision is groundbreaking as it is one of the first Supreme Court cases to address the constitutionality of police surveillance through GPS tracking, it does not overturn any of the 4th Amendment procedures followed by law enforcement today. This decision ruled specifically on the issue of whether the placement of a GPS tracking device and subsequent use of the device to track the movements of the vehicle with an invalid warrant and without the consent of the vehicle owner constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court found that this was a search based on the fact that the officers physically intruded upon Jones’s private property to obtain the information. 
This decision left open many questions regarding the use of GPS tracking devices and similar tracking devices. Consequently, law enforcement officers should stay tuned for future cases in which the more specific issues surrounding electronic means of tracking, including cell phones, factory installed GPS tracking devices and similar devices, are addressed.
To read the full opinion, click here: U.S. v. Jones.