Law 260 Final Paper Fourth Amendment
Patty Blanchard
Intro to Law
12/4/12
Final Research Paper
George Orwell warned us about this in his novel 1984; He claimed that by 1984, Big Brother would be able to watch our every move, and that day is essentially here. It is nice to know that there are laws and officials out there to protect citizens. They are essential to keeping everyone safe, and making sure criminals face justice, but it raises the question of how far are these officials able to go before they are unreasonably invading people’s privacy? That is generally what the 4th Amendment deals with, protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The current case of Jones vs. United States is a suit dealing with the 4th Amendment and has large implications, as it could set precedent for whether or not GPS tracking can be used without a warrant. A tracking device was put on his Jones car by police officers under the suspicions of intent to distribute cocaine. After 4 weeks of 24-hour surveillance, they were able to make an arrest. I believe that the use of GPS tracking makes for more efficient tracking of criminals and should be permitted by the 4th Amendment, as long as a warrant is issued. As evidenced in various law reviews, and previous 4th Amendment cases, GPS tracking is the newest form of tracking and surveillance, and the law needs to catch up with the technology. The 4th amendment states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”(Fourth). In some circumstances only are warrantless searches allowed; situations of searches in highly regulated industries, hazardous operations, and emergency situations. When looking at the case Jones vs. U.S. the main issue is whether placing a GPS device on
Intro to Law
12/4/12
Final Research Paper
George Orwell warned us about this in his novel 1984; He claimed that by 1984, Big Brother would be able to watch our every move, and that day is essentially here. It is nice to know that there are laws and officials out there to protect citizens. They are essential to keeping everyone safe, and making sure criminals face justice, but it raises the question of how far are these officials able to go before they are unreasonably invading people’s privacy? That is generally what the 4th Amendment deals with, protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The current case of Jones vs. United States is a suit dealing with the 4th Amendment and has large implications, as it could set precedent for whether or not GPS tracking can be used without a warrant. A tracking device was put on his Jones car by police officers under the suspicions of intent to distribute cocaine. After 4 weeks of 24-hour surveillance, they were able to make an arrest. I believe that the use of GPS tracking makes for more efficient tracking of criminals and should be permitted by the 4th Amendment, as long as a warrant is issued. As evidenced in various law reviews, and previous 4th Amendment cases, GPS tracking is the newest form of tracking and surveillance, and the law needs to catch up with the technology. The 4th amendment states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”(Fourth). In some circumstances only are warrantless searches allowed; situations of searches in highly regulated industries, hazardous operations, and emergency situations. When looking at the case Jones vs. U.S. the main issue is whether placing a GPS device on
References: Barkow, Anthony. "LexisNexis® Academic & Library Solutions." Business Solutions & Software for Legal, Education and Government | LexisNexis. 9 Nov. 2011. Web. 14 Dec. 2011. <http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/>. Casey, Timothy. "U.C Davis Law Review." Westlaw. Feb. 2008. Web. 14 Dec. 2011. <http://campus.westlaw.com/result/default.wl? Colb, Sherry F. "NEW YORK V. BURGER, 482 U. S. 691 :: Volume 482 :: 1987." US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. Web. 14 Dec. 2011. <http://supreme.justia.com/us/482/691/>. "Fourth Amendment Defined & Explained." The 'Lectric Law Library 's Entrance & Welcome. Web. 14 Dec. 2011. <http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm>. Gillham, Omer. "TulsaWorld." NewsRoom, 28 Oct. 2010. Web. 12 Dec. 2011. <http://campus.westlaw.com/result/default>. "KATZ V. UNITED STATES, 389 U. S. 347 :: Volume 389 :: 1967 :: Full Text." US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. 2004. Web. 14 Dec. 2011. <http://supreme.justia.com/us/389/347/case.html>. "KYLLO V. UNITED STATES (99-8508) 533 U.S. 27 (2001) 190 F.3d 1041, reversed and remanded.." Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute. Cornell University, n.d. Web. 4 Dec 2012. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZS.html>. Liptak, Adam. "Court Case Asks If ‘Big Brother’ Is Spelled GPS." The New York Times. 10 Sept. 2011. Web. 12 Dec. 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/us/11gps.html?_r=1>. "O 'Connor v. Ortega - 480 U.S. 709 (1987)." Justia US Supreme Court System. Justia Company. Web. 4 Dec 2012. <http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/480/709/>. "United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. United States V. Garcia ." FindLaw. Find Law a Thomson Reuters, n.d. Web. 4 Dec 2012. <http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1046181.html>.