This morning the Court issued its decision in the GPS tracking case United States v. Jones, holding that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and then using the device to monitor the vehicle’s movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Although the Justices were unanimous in upholding the opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the reasoning on which they relied to reach that conclusion varied.  Lyle Denniston explained the decision in detail for this blog, while Greg Stohr covered the case for Bloomberg.  Additional coverage is available from Adam Liptak at the New York Times, Robert Barnes and Cecilia Kang of the Washington Post, Joan Biskupic of USA Today, Mike Sacks of the Huffington Post, Kashmir Hill at Forbes, Jesse Holland and Pete Yost of the Associated Press (via MSNBC), Ariane de Vogue of ABC, James Vicini of Reuters, Tony Romm of Politico, Jim Harper of Cato@Liberty, and Brendan Sasso at The Hill’s Hillicon Valley blog.

NRP’s The Two–Way blog features a discussion on the case between Nina Totenberg and Paul Brown.

At the Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr has several posts on the opinion here, here, and here.

Posted in Merits Cases, Round-up

Recommended Citation: Kali Borkoski, Afternoon round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 23, 2012, 2:55 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/01/afternoon-round-up-2/