
Why the Jones Supreme Court Ruling on GPS Tracking Is Worse Than It Sounds - llambda
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/why-the-jones-supreme-court-ruling-on-gps-tracking-is-worse-than-it-sounds/251838/
======
jerrya
It is interesting to see various Constitutional Law Professors and pundits
discuss Sotomayor's role. Compare what Rebecca Rosen says here with what
Jonathan Turley says here [http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/23/supreme-court-
unanimous...](http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/23/supreme-court-unanimously-
rejects-obama-administrations-effort-to-conduct-warrantless-gps-searches/) or
what Orin Kerr says in many posts but especially here:
[http://volokh.com/2012/01/23/why-did-justice-sotomayor-
join-...](http://volokh.com/2012/01/23/why-did-justice-sotomayor-join-scalias-
majority-opinion-in-jones/)

Also interesting the comparisons of the roles and opinions of Alito and
Scalia.

Another relevant article is this one:
[http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/01/homeland-security-
su...](http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/01/homeland-security-
surveillance/)

Homeland Security wants technology to persistently spy on 4 square miles (of
city) at a time, with automated, real time, motion detection."

Think about that and whose Jones opinion you prefer....

~~~
billswift
Another good comment is by Paul Ohm on Freedom to Tinker

[https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/paul/united-states-v-
jone...](https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/paul/united-states-v-jones-near-
optimal-result)

~~~
jdp23
Great analysis by Paul Ohm. I love his summary of Sotomayor's separate
concurring opinion: "Wow. And Amen. Set your stopwatches: the death watch for
the third-party doctrine has finally begun."

------
jangusa
There's another important reason that the Jones case is not as good as it
sounds. The Court only partially decides whether the government can engage in
GPS tracking without a warrant.

In order to determine whether the government violates the 4th Amendment, the
Court must answer two questions. (1) Did the government activity (i.e.,
attaching GPS tracker to a car) qualify as a "search" or "seizure"? (2) If so,
was the search or seizure reasonable?

In the Jones case, the Court ONLY answered the first question, because the
government based its entire case on the argument that attaching a GPS tracker
is not a search. The Court found that attaching a GPS tracker to a car does
indeed qualify as a search, but did not determine under what circumstances it
might be reasonable to conduct such a search without a warrant. So, in a
future case, the court might determine that it is reasonable to search (i.e.,
attach a GPS tracker) without a warrant because, for example, the car might be
moved before the warrant could be approved. In fact, it is already the case
that cars can be searched without warrants in many cases where houses,
personal belongings, etc. cannot be.

(Note that the Court uses the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy"
extensively, but this actually has nothing to do with the reasonableness of
the search. It only determines whether a search occurred.)

~~~
yardie
_In fact, it is already the case that cars can be searched without warrants in
many cases where houses, personal belongings, etc. cannot be._

Can you provide what these specific instances are? AFAIK, the police can't go
into your trunk without a warrant. They also can't open your locked glovebox
(I don't know how a closed one got away). The only thing they can do is
visually inspect your car through the window.

~~~
roel_v
I'm not a con law scholar, but I think he's referring to Carroll v US and
subsequent ruling, summarized on Wikipedia here:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_exception> .

~~~
jangusa
Yep.

