Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

United States v Jones

Dissenting Opinion

Jones' side

Our opinion

Basis for the case

  • It is an invasion of privacy to put GPS on another person's car
  • I agree with the outcome of the decison
  • Was there a "reasonable expectation of privacy?"

  • Small scale monitoring of movement would have been fine, but 24 hour tracking for 4 weeks is highly unreasonable.

  • The Government would be in the wrong even if there were no physical tracker (no trespassing).
  • GPS tracking without a valid warrant is an unreasonable search
  • Supreme Court id not make him aware of the use of technology.
  • The data that the GPS device gathered could have given them information about many more private things.
  • Without technology, a team of agents would have been much more expensive, making it less abused.
  • 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches
  • Police need a warrant to search a person's home
  • Police suspected Jones was running a drug trade and put a tracker on his car without a warrant
  • GPS data --> Police warrant --> Police found drugs --> Jones in prison

Leading questions:

Is the placement of a GPS tracker on a person car without a warrant a search?

2011

2012

2011

2012

2004

Constitutional precedents

How does this effect us?

Majority Opinion

The United States' side

  • Now we know that a Police Officer cannot put a GPS tracker on our car without our knowledge
  • In our private car, we can expect a certain level of privacy
  • There is no privacy while driving on public streets. All of Jones' movements were in public, so he could have been seen regardless.
  • The GPS device could have been removed by Jones at any time.
  • There is no privacy on the outside of a car.
  • A team of offers can legally track a person's location for a month, technology changes nothing..
  • Placing a GPS tracker on a persons car is trespassing on private property.

  • When putting the device on the car, police violated Jones' physical property. Having GPS on the car is the equivalent of having an officer hiding in your trunk.

  • The Government can not invade property that it owned by the suspect in any case.

4th amendment- "The right to be secure in houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. "

US vs. Knotts- Federal Agents placed a beeper into a bucket of chloroform that was sold to a person suspected of using it to make illegal drugs. Court ruled that he had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

US vs. Katz- FBI recorded pay phone conversations when used to illegally gamble. This introduced the Court's reasonable expectation of privacy test.

Kyllo vs. US- A federal agent used an imaging device to scan a home suspected of having marijuana growing operations. Supreme Court ruled that it was a search and that the device detected information that otherwise would not have been known.

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi