And, when is it okay for the government to gather this information on specific citizens without their consent, even n a public area? The court case The United States v Jones (Citation(s) 565 U. S. 132 S. Ct.
945, 181 L. Deed. Id 911 - Docket Number 10-1259) deals with "Whether the government violated the respondent's Fourth Amendment rights by installing a GAPS tracking device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent" (Epic. Com, 2012, pug.
3). GAPS systems are a wonderful item to use, especially if you travel a lot or Just need simple directions.One would not expect these devices to be used against us and track us without our knowledge. It is bad enough GAPS vices store every single turn our car makes, but that should not be so easily obtainable by the government to use to help build their case against a person, and violate their rights while doing so.
There are certain steps and procedures that the government must follow in order to perform a search on a person's vehicle, even in a public area. In 2004, the government suspected Antoine Jones, a night club owner was trafficking drugs and they needed more evidence to make an arrest against him.They decided to place a GAPS tracking system on Jones' car for 28 days. For those 28 days, he government monitored and documented everywhere that Jones had gone. This information helped the officers to determine that Jones was in fact going to drug houses, due to the locations on the GAPS.
After the GAPS tracking information was submitted into evidence, Jones lawyer claimed that the evidence was obtained illegally from his client and violated his Fourth Amendment right, and should not be admissible in court, even though the evidence was collected on public property.The Fourth Amendment is "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be elated, 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" (U. S. Constitution, Amend 'V). By the government placing the GAPS device on Jones vehicle, his property, they violated his fourth amendment right.Jones' lawyer claimed that even though it was public property, the car that the GAPS system was placed on was the defendants private property, regardless its location.
The plaintiff of the court case the U. S. V Jones was the United States. They claimed hat placing the GAPS on the defendant's car was considered constitutional because, the act was done on public property and there was no need for a search warrant.No case before this was ever deemed unconstitutional when the gathering of information was done on public property. Regardless what a citizen has done or is accused of doing, there are certain procedures that need to be taken when the government is trying to gather information on these people, and laws that must be followed.
The moral and ethical issues that surround the plaintiffs side of the case is that the government preformed an illegal search and seizer on a person's piece of riveter property without a warrant.Even though a warrant has never been needed in past cases about search and seizer on public property, the police officers and law officials should have had some type of idea that what they were doing was wrong because, the device was placed on the defendant's private property. "[O]our law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his neighbor's close without his leave; if he does he is a trespasser, though he does no damage at all; if he will tread upon his neighbor's ground, he must Justify it by law' (Supercomputer. M, 2011, pug. 7). Even when a person is pulled over for speeding, if the officer wants to search their car, the person must either agree to the search or ask the officer if they have a warrant to do so.
If the officer cannot provide the driver with a warrant, they cannot search their car because it would be violating their fourth amendment right. The actions that the government did in the case caused their evidence to be useless in court. The defendant of the court case was Antoine Jones.Jones and his lawyer claimed that by the government placing the GAPS on his car for the previous month was unconstitutional because the device was placed on the defendant's private property that he owned and used for his own personal use. And, that the officers needed a warrant in order to place the GAPS device on his car to collect their evidence. The moral and ethical issue that surrounded the defendant was that he was definitely in the wrong by selling drugs.
One of the major issues in America today is the use and abuse of street and pharmaceutical drugs.More and more children are becoming introduced and addicted to these drugs at a younger age because they are so easily available. There are television shows and cartoons that talk about drugs and glorify them. It is completely understandable that the government wants to lock up every drug dealer out there, but they must do it legally. Even drug dealers have rights, until they are arrested and prosecuted, than they become property of the government.
The case U. S. V Jones revolutionized the way technology could be used when it pertains to the government and its citizens. The Supreme Court has long held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment.
Because the Fourth Amendment turns on the existence of a reasonable expectation of privacy, the Court's logic means that the Fourth Amendment provides no protection to surveillance in public" (Solve, 2012, pug. 1). Before the case United States v Jones anything that was obtained in public area was fair game to the government to gather on a citizen.The government did not need a search warrant if the acts were committed on public property. But, since a person's vehicle is considered part of their private property, the action of placing the GAPS on Jones' vehicle was deem unconstitutional and the evidence was unusable in court. Private repertory is defined as "land or belongings owned by a person or group and kept for their exclusive use" (Goldberg, 2012, pug.
2). If the court case would have gone the other way, Just think of everything the government could search if it were on public property.Police officers would claim that the search and seizer of a citizen's phone and the information inside of it was constitutional by law and could be used in court because, they searched the phone on a public sidewalk. If the police officers would have Just gotten a search warrant in the first place to put the GAPS tracking system on the defendant's car, they would have had some evidence they could have used against him.
But, since they did not, this case ended up revolutionized the way technology could be used to obtain citizens personal information on public property.
