14:47
to apply it. I love it- looking like a 155-170+ in a few months for me
Warning
Info
Warning
Info
LSDefine
Simple English definitions for legal terms
United States v. Jones (2012)
Read a random definition: intermediate scrutiny
A quick definition of United States v. Jones (2012):
In United States v. Jones (2012), the Supreme Court decided that it was against the Fourth Amendment for the FBI to put a GPS tracking device on a suspect's car without a proper warrant. The Court said that this was a "search" and violated the suspect's privacy. The case involved a man named Antoine Jones who was suspected of drug trafficking. The FBI put a GPS device on his wife's car and tracked his movements for 28 days. The Court said that this was not allowed because it was like the government was taking the man's property without permission. The Court also said that this case shows how technology is changing the way we think about privacy.A more thorough explanation:
United States v. Jones is a Supreme Court case that dealt with the use of electronic tracking devices by law enforcement agencies. The case held that the placement and use of an electronic tracking device for 28 days on a suspect’s vehicle through an improperly executed warrant constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment.
For example, in 2004, the FBI used an electronic tracking device to track Antoine Jones, a suspect in a drug trafficking case. The device was placed on Jones’ vehicle without a proper warrant and was used to track his movements for 28 days. The Supreme Court ruled that this use of the device constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment.
The Court’s decision was based on the idea that the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. The use of an electronic tracking device without a proper warrant was considered a violation of this protection.
The case is significant because it established that the use of electronic tracking devices by law enforcement agencies is subject to Fourth Amendment protections. This decision has implications for the use of other types of surveillance technologies, such as drones and facial recognition software.