| United States v. Antoine Jones | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 8, 2011 Decided January 23, 2012 | |
| Full case name | United States v. Antoine Jones |
| Docket no. | 10-1259 |
| Citations | 565 U.S. 400 (more) 132 S. Ct. 945; 181 L. Ed. 2d 911; 2012 U.S. LEXIS 1063; 80 U.S.L.W. 4125 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Motion to suppress evidence denied, 451 F. Supp. 2d 71 (D.D.C. 2012); motion for reconsideration denied, 511 F. Supp. 2d 74 (D.D.C. 2007); reversed sub nom. United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010); rehearing en banc denied, 625 F.3d 766 (2010); certiorari granted, 564 U.S. 1036 (2011). |
| Holding | |
| The attachment of the GPS device to a vehicle by the police, and its use to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment and requires a warrant. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Sotomayor |
| Concurrence | Sotomayor |
| Concurrence | Alito (in judgment), joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | |
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.[1]
In 2004, Antoine Jones was suspected by police in the District of Columbia of drug trafficking. Investigators asked for and received a warrant to attach a GPS tracking device to the underside of Jones's car but then exceeded the warrant's scope in both geography and length of time. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that this was a search under the Fourth Amendment, although they were split 5-4 as to the fundamental reasons behind that conclusion. The majority held that by physically installing the GPS device on Jones's car, the police had committed a trespass against his "personal effects". This trespass, in an attempt to obtain information, constituted a search per se.[1]
- ^ a b US v. Jones, 565 US 400 (2012).