{"id":16630,"date":"2012-02-28T10:34:58","date_gmt":"2012-02-28T15:34:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/?p=16630"},"modified":"2012-02-28T10:34:58","modified_gmt":"2012-02-28T15:34:58","slug":"the-resurrection-of-the-trespass-element-of-fourth-amendment-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/2012\/02\/the-resurrection-of-the-trespass-element-of-fourth-amendment-law\/","title":{"rendered":"The Resurrection of the “Trespass” Element of Fourth Amendment Law"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"Recently, in United States v. Jones<\/em>, the Supreme Court ruled that the attaching of a GPS tracking device to a suspect\u2019s car without his knowledge and monitoring of the vehicle\u2019s movements violated the suspect\u2019s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.\u00a0 See generally <\/em>132 S.Ct. 945 (2012).\u00a0 In so doing, the Court resurrected an idea relating to Fourth Amendment law that had been dormant for almost 50 years \u2013 the idea of common-law trespass as a test for violations of the amendment.<\/p>\n

Specifically, police officers obtained a warrant to put the tracking device on a car registered to Jones\u2019 wife.\u00a0 Jones<\/em>, 132 S.Ct. at 948.\u00a0 Officers then placed the GPS tracker on the undercarriage of the car while it was parked in a public parking lot.\u00a0 Id<\/em>.\u00a0 The officers then monitored the car’s movements for 28 days.\u00a0 Id<\/em>.\u00a0 Eventually, the Government indicted Jones on charges of (among other things) conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine.\u00a0 Id<\/em>.\u00a0 Jones moved to suppress the evidence from the GPS device. \u00a0Id<\/em>. \u00a0The district court held that information obtained while the vehicle was on public roads was acceptable, but information while the vehicle was in a private garage must be excluded, citing United States v. Knotts<\/em>.\u00a0 Id<\/em>.\u00a0 There, the Court stated that \u201c[a] person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another.\u201d\u00a0 United States v. Knotts<\/em>, 460 U.S. 276, 281 (1983).\u00a0 Jones was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.\u00a0 Jones<\/em>, 132 S.Ct. at 949.\u00a0 The Court of Appeals, however, reversed, finding the GPS evidence violated the Fourth Amendment, and was therefore improperly admitted.\u00a0 Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The Court acknowledged that in Katz v. United States <\/em>it said that \u201cthe constitution protects people, not places\u201d and that an individual\u2019s rights are violated when the government violates a person\u2019s \u201creasonable expectation of privacy.\u201d\u00a0 Jones<\/em>, 132 S.Ct. at 950, citing Katz v. United States<\/em>, 389 U.S. 347, 351 and 360. \u00a0Despite this, the Court stated that it need not decide if Jones had a \u201creasonable expectation of privacy,\u201d because<\/p>\n

[a]t bottom, we must \u201cassur[e] preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.\u201d\u00a0 Kyllo v. United States<\/em>, 533 U.S. 27, 34 (2001). \u00a0As explained, for most of our history the Fourth Amendment was understood to embody a particular concern for government trespass upon the areas (\u201cpersons, houses, papers, and effects\u201d) it enumerates.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Jones<\/em>, 132 S.Ct. at 950.\u00a0 Quite simply, the Court decided that the officers encroached on a \u201cprotected area\u201d when they attached the GPS device to the vehicle, and as such they violated Jones\u2019 right against government trespass on his \u201ceffects.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 952.\u00a0 Finally, the Court distinguished Knotts <\/em>and United States v. Karo<\/em>, two cases where electronic monitoring of moving objects was upheld, by pointing out that in both of those cases, the monitors were placed in an object belonging to a willing third party, and then given to the defendant (and ultimate target).\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 951-52.<\/p>\n

Overall, I was not convinced by this opinion.\u00a0 I believe the Court is simply making the law in the area of Fourth Amendment searches and seizures unnecessarily confusing, by raising an issue that nobody had thought about for half a century.\u00a0 In that regard, I agree with the concurring opinion, which would apply the Katz <\/em>\u201creasonable expectation of privacy\u201d test.\u00a0 I believe the test has developed, with sufficient case law surrounding it, to a point where it is clear and administrable.<\/p>\n

It seems odd that while surveilling the vehicle on public roads would be legal, placing a GPS device on the outside of a car, while it is in a public parking lot (where anyone could access it) to save time and resources, and not gain any information that would not be gained from surveillance would be deemed unconstitutional because of an old idea of trespass as defining Fourth Amendment violations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Recently, in United States v. Jones, the Supreme Court ruled that the attaching of a GPS tracking device to a suspect\u2019s car without his knowledge and monitoring of the vehicle\u2019s movements violated the suspect\u2019s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.\u00a0 See generally 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012).\u00a0 In so doing, the Court resurrected an […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":130,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ocean_post_layout":"","ocean_both_sidebars_style":"","ocean_both_sidebars_content_width":0,"ocean_both_sidebars_sidebars_width":0,"ocean_sidebar":"","ocean_second_sidebar":"","ocean_disable_margins":"enable","ocean_add_body_class":"","ocean_shortcode_before_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_after_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_before_header":"","ocean_shortcode_after_header":"","ocean_has_shortcode":"","ocean_shortcode_after_title":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_bottom":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_bottom":"","ocean_display_top_bar":"default","ocean_display_header":"default","ocean_header_style":"","ocean_center_header_left_menu":"","ocean_custom_header_template":"","ocean_custom_logo":0,"ocean_custom_retina_logo":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_height":0,"ocean_header_custom_menu":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_family":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_subset":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_size":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_unit":"px","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_line_height":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_unit":"","ocean_menu_typo_spacing":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_unit":"","ocean_menu_link_color":"","ocean_menu_link_color_hover":"","ocean_menu_link_color_active":"","ocean_menu_link_background":"","ocean_menu_link_hover_background":"","ocean_menu_link_active_background":"","ocean_menu_social_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_links_color":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_color":"","ocean_disable_title":"default","ocean_disable_heading":"default","ocean_post_title":"","ocean_post_subheading":"","ocean_post_title_style":"","ocean_post_title_background_color":"","ocean_post_title_background":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_image_position":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_attachment":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_repeat":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_size":"","ocean_post_title_height":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay":0.5,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay_color":"","ocean_disable_breadcrumbs":"default","ocean_breadcrumbs_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_separator_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_hover_color":"","ocean_display_footer_widgets":"default","ocean_display_footer_bottom":"default","ocean_custom_footer_template":"","ocean_post_oembed":"","ocean_post_self_hosted_media":"","ocean_post_video_embed":"","ocean_link_format":"","ocean_link_format_target":"self","ocean_quote_format":"","ocean_quote_format_link":"post","ocean_gallery_link_images":"on","ocean_gallery_id":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[126,30,122,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16630","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-constitutional-law","category-criminal-justice","category-public","category-us-supreme-court","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16630","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/130"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16630"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16630\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16630"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16630"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16630"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}