Procedural History Of Antoine Jones

Procedural History

In 2004, Antoine Jones was suspected of drug trafficking, which led to the FBI installing an unwarranted Global Positioning System (GPS) on Jones’ vehicle. On October 24, 2005, Jones was arrested for drug possession. The FBI obtained evidence needed to indict Jones on conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and 50 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U. S. C. §§841 and 846. Jones was represented by A. Eduardo Balarezo, who filed a motion before trial to suppress evidence obtained by the GPS. Jones was tried before the United States Court of Appeals for the District Circuit with charges of conspiracy to distributed cocaine. After deliberation, the jury acquitted

Jones was protected by the constitution for unreasonable searches and seizures. The evidence obtained from the illegal search warrant was voided and was suppressed from being used in court against Jones.

R2: By reaching into the interior of Jones’ vehicle, the court concluded that this act from law enforcement involved an unreasonable search. The police used an expired warrant to attach the GPS to Jones vehicle. Furthermore, this act violated Jones’ Fourth Amendment right.

R3: The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and affects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. It is disputable that a vehicle lies under the category of an effect. Moreover, the vehicle being an effect violates the Fourth Amendment and therefore makes the search illegal.

R4: The Court of Appeals established that while the vehicle was registered in Jones’ wife’s name, it did not warrant his ability to make a Fourth Amendment objection. Alternatively, the FBI did not challenge this

The FBI invaded private property to install the GPS, which concerned government trespass on private property with intent to find evidence against Jones.

Justice Sotomayer’s dissent:

1. Justice Sotomayer joined the Court’s opinion because the search conducted by the FBI “obtains information by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area.”

2. Additionally, Justice Sotomayer notes that physical intrusion is now avoidable to many forms of surveillance.

3. Justice Sotomayer says that “because the government’s physical intrusion on Jones’ jeep supplies a narrower basis for decision. I therefore join the majority’s opinion.

Justice Alito dissent:

1. Justice Alito says that by attaching a small GPS device to the defendant’s vehicle, the officers in this case engaged in conduct that might have provided reason for a lawsuit against trespassing.

2. Furthermore, Justice Alito agreed with the court concluding that the installation and use of the GPS device constituted a search.

3. Justice Alito continues to agree with the court by saying, “we must assure preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was