Yesterday the Supreme Court announced its decision in U.S. v. Jones. Jones involved a case where a suspected drug dealer was monitored by the police using a GPS device attached to his car. The police had obtained a warrant, but went beyond the warrant’s terms when they used the GPS. The defendant made a motion to suppress the evidence obtained by the GPS, and the issue ultimately made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Court ruled in favor of the defendant Jones. I haven’t had time to read the whole opinion yet, but generally the Court decided that the physical attachment of the GPS device is akin to a trespass, which is a violation of the 4th Amendment’s ban on unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. In deciding the case based on trespass, the Court sidestepped the issue of whether Jones had a reasonable expectation of privacy in where his car went. Making such a decision would have required the Court to delve into the uses of technology in surveillance, as well as how people view their privacy in this age of constant use of technology.
Although the decision is a step in the right direction in terms of protecting our privacy, many commentators are saying that the Court has not gone far enough. We are all beginning to realize that all our great technology creates the opportunity to intrude on our privacy, and our society, as well as our courts, will have to decide how we are going to balance those two interests. What do you think? Did the Court go far enough?
I may have more to say about this case after I read the entire decision, but I wanted to let everyone know about this important breaking news.
4 Comments
Katerina Papatheodorou posted on January 25, 2012 at 5:34 pm
One could argue that though it was ethically wrong to use the GPS device to monitor his car, it was the right thing to do because it helped catch a criminal, who could ruin many lives. Is it justifiable, however, to put the interests of the few ahead of the one?
And if the courts did allow the prosecution to submit the evidence they collected by illegally monitoring the car (however good the result), what would follow? Criminal or not he is still a person with equal rights as everyone. So, the Court did good to dismiss the evidence because if they didn’t then it could lead to a slippery slope. And, it wouldn’t be long before they would turn the blind eye on coerced confessions and torturing the suspects.
Jinfeng Cai posted on January 29, 2012 at 11:05 am
Both sides can hold water, it’s a very controversial case. Personally, I would like to say that the Court should not dismiss the eveidence. To some extent, monitoring criminal’s car violates his privacy but Police was trying to catch evidence agasit the crinimal. In addition, monitoring crinimal’s car was easy and essential. For instance, Police could stop crimes or ruinings right away since they always keep their eyes on criminals. I would say the benefit of this behavior outweighs its drawbacks.
Katerina Papatheodorou posted on January 30, 2012 at 6:03 pm
I believe that this shouldn’t be a decision of costs v. benefits, but a decision of right v. wrong.
I am really supportive of law enforcement and catching criminals, but it shouldn’t be achieved by breaking the law.
Sophie Park posted on February 29, 2012 at 2:47 pm
I agree with Katerina. Although the Court could easily justify using the evidence from the GPS, this draws a fine line between the right to privacy and the right to investigate. Just because the drug dealer was clearly a criminal, going beyond the warrant’s terms may seem logical, but how do you know when to investigate further or not? Can a normal bystander be investigated with the advanced use of technology these days? With all the tracking devices and data that can be obtained from technology in this present day and age, it’s hard to tell when the Court can interfere and go beyond what is given.
I personally think that it was right of the Court to dismiss the evidence; because of precedent, subsequent cases could involve more and more involvement of the Court in invading an individual’s privacy, which could lead to a society that George Orwell predicted fairly well.