LSDT301

  

50 WORDS AGREE OR DISAGREE TO EACH QUESTIONS

Q. 1.

Is it a reasonable progression based on the Court’s analysis to require a warrant before the government places a GPS on a vehicle? Why or why not? 
In United States v.Jones, police placed a gps tracking device on Jones’ jeep without a warrant. Inn a unanimous decision for Jones, ustice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. The Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, and held that the installation of a GPS tracking device on Jones’ vehicle, without a warrant, constituted an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment. [1]
Based on the Court’s interpretation of the right to privacy under the 4th Amendment, should a warrant be required to place a GPS? Why or why not? 
It is reasonable for a court to require a warrant before the government to place a GPS on a vehicle. Based on the Fourth Amendment, this Bill stops agencies from placing illegal devices on privately owned property without having probable cause. In Carroll v. United States, Each filed a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence found at the time of arrest. The district court granted the motions, citing a lack of probable cause. [2]
Assuming that a warrant is required, what are the exceptions to this requirement that might apply when the government legally places a GPS on a vehicle? 
Exceptions may include consent, plain view, search incident to arrest, exigent circumstances, automobile exceptions, and hit pursuit. 
Of all this exceptions listed above, exigent circumstances may be the only exception that may apply in placing a gps. Exigent circumstances is defined as police are not required to obtain a search warrant if they reasonably believe that evidence may be destroyed or others may be placed in danger in the time it would take to secure the warrant. [3]
References
[1] United States v. Jones, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/10-1259 (last visited Oct 2, 2019).
[2] Carroll v. United States, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1956/571 (last visited Oct 2, 2019

Q. 2.

In response to questions 1 and 2, the answer is ‘Yes.’   The fourth amendment grants certain privacy rights to American citizens, protecting them from unreasonable searches and seizures and by requiring that warrants are to be based on probable cause. 
The Government’s use of GPS on a vehicle without first obtaining a warrant is unreasonable and is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The doctrine of the Fourth Amendment 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.”[1] 
However, in the matter of  U. S v Katzin the court considered valid warrantless searches based on less probable causes such as reasonable suspicion, recognizing that in certain circumstances, an officer does not need a warrant and probable cause to search.[2] Standardless and unconstrained discretion carried out by the government in surveillance, such as GPS tracking is nonetheless unreasonable.

[1] Amendment 4 Unreasonable searches and seizures., USCS Const. Amend. 4 (Current through the ratification of the 27th Amendment on May 7, 1992.). Retrieved from https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00-1&context=1516831.
[2] United States v. Katzin, 769 F.3d 163, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 19012 (United States Court of Appeals for the Third CircuitOctober 1, 2014, Filed). Retrieved from https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5D89-P3K1-F04K-K0F4-00000-00&context=1516831.

Q. 3.

Reviewing the Fourth Amendment, Cornell Law School (n.d.), describes this has “being the right of the people to secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effect 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.”
When we analyze the legalities of the rights of the people and obtaining warrants, legally I would argue that the Fourth Amendment is clear in the protection against unreasonable searches. Technology has evolved so much, that although it could make things easier when attempting to acquire enough evidence to convict or arrest that individual. The “vehicle exception” doctrine states that if a car is a readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the police department can legally search the vehicle without a warrant. With this exception, I can agree if there is contraband in the car, not following the vehicle to reach the contraband, which was similar to the Katz vs. the United States case. Anything outside of this, in my opinion, should have a warrant to conduct surveillance to include GPS systems even if the individual is suspected of a crime.
References:
Cornell Law School. (n.d.). Fourth Amendment. Re
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/389/347/#tab-opinion-1946919