The Pros And Cons Of G. P. S Tracking

In the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment ensures that American citizens have the right to be secure in their home from government intrusion. Essentially, an officer cannot enter the place of residence of an individual without probable cause or a search warrant. However, with the advances of technology, the government is able to use G.P.S technology to gain information on certain criminal prospects without probable cause. This is considered unlawful in regards to what the Fourth Amendment stands for. Even under the current law, it still comes to the matter of question if this type of scrutiny was done in a public or private area. However, the Supreme Court issued a statement that devices that contain G.P.S tracking capabilities are acceptable

Originating in England, the “writ of assistance” was a general warrant that allowed British soldiers to invade the homes of England colonist to track smugglers and imported goods which were illegal. The way this warrant worked is that even with the smallest suspicion from British tax collectors or other British officials, the court system issued a warrant thus permitting invasive door to door searches in the neighborhood of many innocent individuals. The law also did not allow residents to question why their home was being searched or what probable cause the British officers had to search their home. Essentially, the Englanders’ rights and liberties were placed in the hands of government officials. To demonstrate a cruel reality, about the British Government a case that brought light to many was the Paxton case. A colonist by the name of James Otis, was the spokesperson for the townspeople who stated that the writ of

Jones, was another controversial case when the anti drug task force located in Washington D.C, suspected Antoine jones of being involved in a illegal drug business and they essentially wanted to track his whereabouts. In order to do that the police attached a GPS device to Jones vehicle and traced him for a month. however, the problem here is that law enforcement officials did not have a warrant to attach a tracking device to his vehicle. Based on the information collected from the GPS the police found a drug house that Jones constantly visited. After the police found the drug house they were issued a warrant for his arrest and when the officers arrived on the scene of the drug house they had an insurmountable lead on him because they discovered large amounts of drugs and drug money. Jones was then sentenced to life in prison, however, Jones knew that the search was unreasonable and wanted a fair trial. In result, the Court issued a statement saying that attaching a G.P.S device to Jones car violated his privacy and Fourth Amendment rights and was indeed a search on his private