Fourth Amendment Given Some Bite by Supreme Court
A few months ago, I wrote about the arguments being heard by the United States Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Jones. You can read my previous article on the case by clicking here, but to provide a brief synopsis: in that case the government argued that law enforcement officers do not need a search warrant to attach a GPS device to a person’s vehicle and then monitor the movements of that vehicle. Today, the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, held that the installation of a GPS device on a suspect’s vehicle constitutes a search for Fourth Amendment purposes, and therefore it presumptively requires a warrant.
This decision is being touted as one of the most important liberty and privacy cases decided by the Supreme Court over the past several decades. According to the opinion written by Justice Scalia (joined by four other Justices), “[i]t is important to be clear about what occurred in this case: The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.” In a concurring opinion, Justice Alito (joined by 3 other Justices) did not agree that the warrantless trespass on to the defendant’s property was the key that made the installation of the GPS device and the subsequent monitoring of the vehicle an unconstitutional search. Rather, Judge Alito reasoned that citizens have an expectation of privacy in their long-term movements because a reasonable person would not anticipate being monitored for extended periods of time.
As technology continues to evolve, the techniques used by law enforcement to monitor citizens will continue to get more and more sophisticated and advanced. This opinion sends the message that there is a line that law enforcement may not cross. New issues will certainly arise in the future based on more advanced technology (e.g., the use of a cell phone GPS system to monitor the movements of a suspect without a warrant); however, for the time being, this is a significant victory. Anyone charged with a crime in New Jersey should contact New Jersey criminal defense lawyer Nace Naumoski for representation.
