Legal Definitions - United States v. Jones (2012)

The Supreme Court case of United States v. Jones (2012) established a significant precedent regarding government surveillance and the Fourth Amendment. The Court ruled that when law enforcement physically attaches a GPS tracking device to a person's private property, such as a vehicle, and uses it to monitor their movements for an extended period, this action constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. This means that, generally, a valid warrant based on probable cause is required for such surveillance.

The Court's decision in Jones emphasized a "trespassory" approach to the Fourth Amendment. It held that the government's physical intrusion onto private property (the car) to obtain information was a clear violation of the property owner's rights, akin to an old common-law trespass. This ruling clarified that even if an individual's movements on public roads might be observable by others, the act of physically placing a tracking device on their private property for surveillance purposes is a distinct legal event that triggers Fourth Amendment protections.

Here are some examples illustrating the principles established in United States v. Jones:

• Example 1: Covert Vehicle Tracking

  A local police department suspects a person of involvement in a series of burglaries. Without obtaining a warrant, officers secretly attach a small GPS tracker to the bumper of the suspect's car while it is parked in their driveway. For two weeks, the police monitor the car's every movement, collecting data on where it travels and how long it stays at each location. This surveillance, because it involved a physical intrusion onto private property (the car) to gather information, would likely be considered an unconstitutional search under United States v. Jones, making the collected evidence inadmissible in court.

• Example 2: Extended Surveillance Beyond Warrant Scope

  Federal agents obtain a warrant to place a tracking device on a suspected smuggler's cargo truck for a period of 72 hours to monitor a specific delivery. However, due to an administrative error, the device remains active and continues to transmit location data for an additional month after the warrant expires. Any evidence gathered from the tracking device during that extended, unauthorized period would be considered the fruit of an unlawful search under the principles of United States v. Jones, as the government's continued physical occupation and use of the device on private property lacked proper legal authorization.

• Example 3: Tracking Personal Items

  An investigative agency suspects an individual of intellectual property theft. They manage to gain access to the individual's private office and, without a warrant, secretly place a miniature tracking device inside their briefcase. The agency then uses this device to track the briefcase's movements, and by extension, the individual's movements, for several days. This act of physically placing a device inside a personal item (private property) to conduct surveillance would also fall under the "search" definition established by United States v. Jones, requiring a warrant for such an intrusion.