On November 18, 2011, charges was bought against Antoine Jones for possession of drug trafficking. The case was the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 10-1259, Citation 565 U.S 132 s. Ct. 945, 181 L. Ed 2d 911; United States, petitioner v. Antoine Jones. All 9 parties of the Supreme Court were present for the trail as well as the plaintiffs which were the law enforcements along with Deputy Michael R. Dreeben and the defendant Antoine Jones. Each party hand a chance to deliberate their opinions and stating their case against Antoine Jones. This case was not only bought into court just for Mr. Jones’s cocaine distribution but for authorities violating Antoine Jones Fourth Amendment rights by planting a global positioning system on the defendant’s’ …show more content…
Through various investigations, law enforcement was given a warrant to implant the device on the defendant’s vehicle. The vehicle belongs to Jones’s wife; however he was listed as a driver. Authorities were given 10 days from the date the warrant was received to plant the device on the vehicle in the District of Columbia. However, authorities made the decision to attach the tracking device on the 11th day in the state of Maryland which was out of the warrant grace period as well as in another district. Experts fixated the device on the base of the vehicle while it was parked in Jones’s opened garage to track its movement. The vehicle was followed up to 100ft allowing authorities to generate multiple data for a period of 28 days. Law enforcement were able to gain enough evidence to obtain an arraignment against Antoine Jones for possession of drug …show more content…
Authorities’ broke the law by trespassing on private property and planting a tracking device without a valet warrant or consent. On January 23, 2012 the Supreme Court held that the Government’s installation of a GPS device on a person vehicle and its use of that device to monitor the vehicles’ movement constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. The majority argued that putting a GPS device on private property would be considered trespassing on private property and that it constitutes Jones’s Fourth Amendment rights. The minority argued that the Fourth amendment did not violated Jones’s rights in that particular situation because Jones was under suspicion of drug trafficking and they had the right to install a global positioning system on the defendant’s vehicle. They argue the fourth Amendment can be breached under certain circumstances and situations. The minority concurred in the judgment but criticized the framing of the question in terms of trespass to property and believed that such a construction of the problem strained the language of the Fourth Amendment and that it would be better to analyze the case by determining whether the Government violated Jones' reasonable expectations of