United States v. Jones
393 U.S. App. D.C. 194
| D.C. Cir. | 2010Background
- Jones was subjected to GPS tracking of his vehicle for about four weeks without a warrant.
- The district court panel held the warrantless GPS surveillance to be an unreasonable Fourth Amendment search.
- The government petitioned for rehearing en banc, which the court denied.
- Dissenting judges urged en banc review, arguing Knotts controls and that aggregation of data should be scrutinized.
- The opinion discusses Knotts and whether long-term data aggregation alters the reasonable expectation of privacy.
- A separate property-based challenge to the GPS installation was raised but not decided by the panel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is warrantless GPS tracking for four weeks a Fourth Amendment search? | Jones argues tracking without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment. | United States contends tracking is permissible under doctrine allowing augmented surveillance. | Panel held it was an unreasonable search. |
| Does aggregating long-term GPS data create a privacy invocation beyond the public? | Jones asserts aggregation reveals private patterns not exposed publicly. | Government contends total movements become public only in aggregate, not individually. | Panel treated aggregation as a searchable intrusion into privacy. |
| Does the installation of the GPS device on Jones's car without a warrant raise a separate Fourth Amendment issue? | Jones relies on property-based Fourth Amendment protections and Silverman/Soldal lines. | Knotts and related precedent govern the surveillance, not installation standing. | Not decided by panel; en banc consideration urged. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (upholds electronic monitoring as Fourth Amendment permissible when no privacy expectation is involved)
- Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (1992) (property-based protections remain relevant under the Fourth Amendment)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (reasonable expectation of privacy governs Fourth Amendment searches)
- Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (1961) (physical intrusion into protected areas triggers Fourth Amendment protections)
- United States v. Garcia, 474 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2010) (GPS tracking aligns with visual/satellite surveillance as contrary to Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Marquez, 605 F.3d 604 (8th Cir. 2010) (GPS tracking cases across circuits)
- United States v. Pineda-Moreno, 591 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2010) (GPS tracking and digital surveillance considerations)