Us Vs Jones Case Study

the United States, the idea of “reasonable expectation of privacy” became related with the Fourth Amendment, and anything that trespasses the “reasonable expectation of privacy” violates it. Antoine Jones had a reasonable expectation of privacy as he went about his everyday life for the 28 days he was monitored.

Researchers stated that any government officials or law enforcement officers must provide a warrant signed by the court to perform a search on a suspect home, business, or vehicle. Jones case was more persuasive in his argument due to the fact that the law enforcement failed to obtain approval warrant before proceeding a tracking device on the suspect. Jones was violated from his privacy and it was placed without the consent of him. Justice Alito believed that the evolution of technology will eventually oversee people location, which draws a line between privacy and publicness. If the law enforcement officers had a probable cause on Jones’ actions that a crime is occurring, they would have used tried to obtain a warrant or try different methods that does not violate the

Both the fourth and fifth amendment protect the privacies of individuals from governmental intrusion. Appellant Boyd complained that she was denied her constitutional right to testify. The right to testify comes from many amendments and clauses in the constitution such as the due process clauses, the Fifth, and Fourteenth amendment. The court held that “ the search for and seizure of evidence within an accused’s possession might well result in compelling the accused to be a witness against himself.” Then, the court reasoned that the search was unreasonable “ab initio” and it makes it a violation of the fourth amendment. Justice Black mentioned in his concurrence that if something is obtained illegally, it cannot be used again the appellant. The Boyd’s case was not the only case mentioned in the Mapp v. Ohio opinion. Additionally, Weeks v. United States (1914) was a case that determined the warrantless seizure of items from an individual is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The question brought up to the court resulting from this case was, was the evidence admitted at trial from Riley's cell phone discovered through a search that violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches? The Supreme Court ruled

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects citizens against unlawful searches and seizures - a warrant with reasonable justification to lead a search is required, in this case protecting Mapp from further conviction (since the police entered without any search warrant). Her case, which was brought to the US supreme court, ended 5/3 in her favour. The Court proclaimed that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth

1) The US Supreme Court held the Fourth Amendment only protects the right of privacy for a person when the individual actually expects privacy. In addition, the individual’s expectation of privacy needs to be reasonable. Rosanna have a ten-foot fence surrounding the garden by her house. She has a reasonable expectation of privacy for the contents inside of that particular garden, and she expects privacy since she had put up a tall privacy fence for that purpose. However, she has no expectation of privacy for the open field garden located next to the road. This garden is in an open field, an expectation of privacy is unreasonable to a reasonable person. Since she did not put up any fence around this garden, it shows that Rosanna have no expectation of privacy for this garden. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment protection of individual’s expectation of privacy only protects the privacy of Rosanna’s garden next to her house and not the open field garden next to the road.

It was also the fact that whether or not the evidence was retrieved when the law enforcement illegally attached a tracking device to the vehicle could be used to convict Jones on drug charges who was sentence to life in prison. According to the Fourth Amendment citizens have the right to be secured in their houses, papers and effects against an reasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated an no warrants shall be issue upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and person or thing to be seized.

In this case, I am presenting an individual citizens Fourth Amendment protection captivated from Jones and others individuals. The government started investigating Jones with a suspicions conspiracy of drug trafficking. A tracking device installed on the defendants’ vehicle after a terminated authorize a warrant permanent to the Government to search and install a GPA on Jones vehicle. Antoine Jones and others with the same conspiracy of the investigation were sentenced life imprisoned by the District Court Juries of Washington District of Columbia. The jury found Jones guilty of drug trafficking and possessions. The 12 amendments proposed in 1789, that constitutions the Bill of Rights under no circumstance to protections individualities

Mapp’s conviction was overturned, and 5 Supreme Court justices found that the states were in fact bound to exclude any evidence that was obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment. The court justices felt that if evidence obtained through a violation of the 4th Amendment, was admissible, and then there would be no assurance against any type of unreasonable search and seizure, making the 4th Amendment essentially meaningless. After this decision, any evidence that was obtained through illegal searches would be inadmissible in the courts of every

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects every individual’s personal privacy, and every person’s right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion in their homes, businesses and property, regardless of whether it is through police stops and checks or the search of their homes. In the context of Mr. Smith’s Arrest, he was arrested without a warrant of arrest and there was a search, which was conducted by a private citizen on his premises without a search warrant, the courts upheld his arrest and subsequent conviction thus implying that all due process was followed before reaching at the verdict. The constitutionality of search and arrest without a warrant was challenged in the case of PayTon v. Newyork, (1980) (Payton v. New York | Casebriefs, 2017).

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “The right of the people 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”. It consists of two clauses, the reasonableness clause which focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure and the warrant clause which limits the scope of a search. There are many views on how the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted, especially by today’s standards. The world has evolved significantly since the implementation of the Bill of Rights. As it evolved, time brought about numerous cases on the applicability of the Fourth Amendment. When plaintiffs are not satisfied with the decision of lower courts, they can

The Court faced the question of whether the search of Riley’s cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment rights to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.

United States v. Antonie Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945, (2012) is a case where Defendant came under suspicion of trafficking with narcotics. Agents installed a GPS tracking device on the undercarriage of his wife’s vehicle while it was parked in a public parking lot. Over the 28 next days, the Government used the device to track every single movement of the vehicle. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Government’s installation of the GPS device on defendant’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, was constituted a “search”. Under the common-law trespassory test, the Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. Such a physical intrusion would have been considered as a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was originally adopted. Defendant possessed the vehicle at the time the Government trespassorilly inserted the information-gathering device. Although the Government forfeited its alternative argument that officers had reasonable suspicion and probable cause, the conviction was overturned. In this case the Supreme Court announced that a warrant is required to track a suspect through GPS systems. Regardless of the car being in public or private property, a warrant is needed to be able to intrude someone’s personal property; in this case the defendant

Since its inception, the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution have been expanding and evolving because of new technology. The Fourth Amendment generally protects us all from “unreasonable searches and seizures” by the government (Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure, n.d., p. 1199). Court cases such as Katz v. United States and Riley v. California highlight how new technology can lead to decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States that alter the protections provided by this amendment (Hall, 2015). In 1968, the Supreme Court decision in Katz v. United States fundamentally changed the measure used to judge whether a Fourth Amendment violation occurs due to new technology being utilized by law enforcement. The 2014 Supreme Court decision in the case of Riley v. California is a more relatable case, since it involves technology that the vast majority of us use everyday (Savage, 2014). This case changed the way law enforcement is able to legally search the cellphone of an arrestee, by strengthening the arrestee’s right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment.

Privacy is the most important thing to people. Officers being able to search any ones car should not be legal without obtaining a warrant. Citizens should have the right to decline searches, or accept if wanted. Results from a survey show nearly 88% of people thought this law was an intrusion upon people’s personal lives. Not all surveyed necessarily agreed with my perspective, however, nearly all agreed it was a violation of people’s right to