United States v. Jones

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
10-1259	D.C. Cir. _	Nov 8, 2011 Tr.Aud.	Jan 23, 2012	9-0	Scalia	OT 2011

Holding: 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.

Plain English Holding: The defendant’s conviction for drug trafficking must be reversed when some of the evidence to convict him was obtained through a GPS tracking device on his car, because the attachment of the GPS tracking device and then the use of that device to monitor the car’s whereabouts is a “search” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.

Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on January 23, 2012. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito also filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. The five concurring members of the Court do not resolve the question of whether the search was reasonable in this case.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

• SCOTUS for law students (sponsored by Bloomberg Law): The Court takes on DNA screening (Stephen Wermiel)
• Reviewing the Fourth Amendment cases of OT2011 (Orin Kerr)
• Recent opinions: In Plain English (Amy Howe)
• Why Jones is still less of a pro-privacy decision than most thought (Conclusion slightly revised Jan. 31) (Tom Goldstein)
• Jones confounds the press (Tom Goldstein)
• Reactions to Jones v. United States: The government fared much better than everyone realizes (Tom Goldstein)
• Opinion recap: Tight limit on police GPS use (FINAL UPDATE) (Lyle Denniston)
• Argument recap: For GPS, get a warrant (Lyle Denniston)
• Argument preview: High-tech policing (Lyle Denniston)
• Does installing a GPS device on a car constitute a Fourth Amendment search or seizure? (Orin Kerr)
• Academic round-up (Amanda Frost)
• Does using a GPS device to track a suspect constitute a Fourth Amendment search? (Orin Kerr)
• Commentary on DOJ's Brief in United States v. Jones (Orin Kerr)
• Analysis: Of old values and modernity (Lyle Denniston)
• Police and high-tech monitoring (Lyle Denniston)

Briefs and Documents

Merits Briefs for the Petitioner

• Brief for the  United States
• Reply brief for the  United States

Amicus briefs in support of the Petitioner

• Brief for the Center on the Administration of Criminal Law

Merits Briefs for the Respondent

• Brief for respondent Antoine Jones

 Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondent

• Brief for the Council on American-Islamic Relations
• Brief for the ACLU et al. 
• Brief for Gun Owners of America, Inc.
• Brief for EPIC et al.
• Brief for Fourth Amendment Historians
• Brief for NACDL el al.
• Brief for Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc.
•  Brief for the Constitution Project
• Brief for the Center for Democracy and Technology et al.
• Brief for Yale Law School Information Society Project Scholars et al. 
• Brief for the Cato Institute
• Brief for the Rutherford Institute and National Motorists Association

Certiorari-stage documents

• Opinion below (D.C. Circuit) _
• Petition for certiorari
• Petitioner's reply

• Brief in opposition
• Amicus brief of Gun Owners of America, Inc. et al.