The GPS Tracking Case Fourth Amendment United States Constitution

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "The GPS Tracking Case Fourth Amendment United States Constitution"

Adrian Barnett
6 years ago
Views:

Fourth Amendment United States Constitution The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be

1 Fourth Amendment United States Constitution The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and persons or things to be seized.

2 State of Florida v. Justin Barber Florida High School has a NO DRUG USE policy that all students agree to follow. Despite this policy, Florida High School continues to have a drug problem among its students. Drug use is not only illegal, it causes discipline problems. Justin Barber is an 18 year old senior at Florida High School. He is well liked, has many friends, is smart and hardworking. Justin dreams of going to medical school. Justin has a problem; his family doesn t have the money to send him to college. For this reason, Justin has been selling drugs to earn money to pay for school. Because he has many friends, Justin is now the biggest drug dealer at Florida High. During a recent drug bust at the school, the police were given a tip that Justin was the dealer supplying drugs to students. With this suspicion, the police began to monitor Justin s activities. The police decided to follow Justin for a few days. However, in order to improve their efficiency in surveillance, the police secretly attached a GPS tracking device to Justin s car. The GPS pinpointed the car's location every 10 seconds, 24 hours a day, for 28 days and ultimately it led to Justin s arrest and the seizure of marijuana and cocaine and $50,000 stashed at his house evidence used to convict him. At trial, Justin Barber was found guilty of selling drugs. Because of this he was sentenced to prison and did not graduate high school with his senior class. Justin and his attorney filed an appeal to the District Court of Appeal arguing that attaching a GPS device to his car without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures and his right to privacy. The State of Florida argued that the Fourth Amendment doesn t apply in this case because the GPS device was used as a surveillance activity by police conducted on public roads where there is no expectation of privacy. The appellate court disagreed with the trial court s decision and set the conviction aside because the police had failed to get a search warrant before putting the GPS device on Justin s car. The State of Florida is appealing the DCA decision to the Florida Supreme Court who is now ready to hear oral arguments in this case.

3 Case Study Sheet I. What are the Facts? II. State the Issue to be Decided: III. Arguments for Petitioner: IV. Arguments for Respondent: V. What is YOUR reasonable expectation of privacy? VI. How can law enforcement combat crime and balance our freedoms?: VII. What Would You Decide? VIII. Reason/Evaluation:

4 Constitutional Question Can the police install a GPS tracking device without a warrant on person s vehicle and monitor its movements on public streets? Does this violate the Fourth Amendment? Points to Consider: 1. If the Fourth Amendment applies, what is the search and the seizure that occurred? 2. Is using technology to tail someone any different than using police officers for the same purpose? 3. How much tracking is too much tracking without a warrant? 4. What is your expectation of privacy traveling in your car? Case Law: Katz v. U.S. (1967) Stated the Fourth Amendment protected people not just areas. What a person knowingly exposes to the public is not protected but further stated that it also protects what a person seeks to preserve as private, even in areas accessible to the public. U.S. v. Knotts (1983) There is no reasonable expectation of privacy against visual observation by the police on public thoroughfares - even when aided by an electronic device (beeper) to alert the police to a vehicle s whereabouts. U.S. v. Karo (1984) - The use of an electronic beeper device to monitor a can of ether without a warrant constituted unlawful search and seizure.

5 Petitioner Arguments MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. MY NAME IS AND I REPRESENT THE PETITIONER, THE STATE OF FLORIDA, WHO ARGUES THAT THE USE OF THE GPS DID NOT VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. STATE s Arguments (for GPS monitoring) include: 1. Using a GPS device is not a search. The police did not go inside anything or look through Mr. Barber s personal property. 2. Mr. Barber s privacy was not violated because he was traveling on a public roadway. 3. The police most often use GPS devices at the early stages of an investigation to gather information that can lead to probable cause and obtaining a warrant. 4. People today don t value their privacy like people did years ago. There is so much technology available from video cameras and smart phones to FaceBook that people don t have the same expectation of privacy as our founding fathers did. The interpretation of the Fourth Amendment must reflect this change. 5. Other cases in our history have allowed the police the ability to conduct surveillance without a warrant. Surveillance using a GPS is no different. 6. With advances in technology today, the police should be able to use these advances to their advantage to combat crime. 7. The police need the ability to combat drugs on our streets and in our schools.

6 Respondent Arguments MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. MY NAME IS AND I REPRESENT THE RESPONDENT, JUSTIN BARBER, WHO ARGUES THAT THE USE OF THE GPS DID VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. BARBER s Arguments (against the GPS surveillance) include: 1. The use of a GPS device on a car is unreasonable because it is providing private details of a person s life. The police should have had a warrant to track Mr. Barber s whereabouts BEFORE installing the GPS device. 2. Because the police officers trespassed on Mr. Barber s property to install the GPS in secret, the information seized from the GPS is unconstitutional. 3. Our expectation of privacy DOES include our movements in our car. It doesn t matter if we travel on the public roads, people have an expectation of privacy in their car because the car is within their control. 4. Because technology is far more advanced today than our founding fathers ever envisioned, the boundaries of privacy must be extended to include the use of tracking devices on cars without our knowledge. 5. Allowing the government to secretly install monitoring devices on cars without probable cause and without the review of the judicial branch is scary.

7 Sample Questions for Justices Questions to ask the Petitioner (STATE OF FLORIDA): 1. So you are saying that the police can put a GPS device on MY car, a Florida Supreme Court justice s car, without a warrant? 2. How much surveillance is OK without a warrant? A few hours? A few days? 3. Don t you think that 24-hour monitoring for a month is too much of an intrusion into someone s private life? 4. If you win this case, are you saying the police can monitor the movements of everyone in the United States without a warrant and call it surveillance? 5. Don t you think it is creepy and un-american that the police are allowed to secretly track someone and not be limited in any way? 6. Why don t you think that a car is a considered a person s effects as the Fourth Amendment lists?

8 Sample Questions for Justices Questions to ask the Respondent (JUSTIN BARBER): 1. What s the difference between using a GPS device on a car and using police officers to follow someone? The police have a job to do, right? 2. What is the difference between tracking movement using a GPS device and using surveillance cameras that are found today in stores and on streets? It feels like we are now under constant surveillance no matter where we go. 3. Where in the Fourth Amendment does it say that monitoring a car s movement is protected? I thought it was just persons, houses, papers and effects? 4. Where is the invasion of privacy? What is the search that took place in this case? 5. What if in the future all cars have a GPS tracking device and the police just use the car s GPS device instead. Would that be any different? 6. In your opinion, what should the police have done instead?

9 Marshal s Script (You must call Court to order in a very loud voice.) All rise. The GPS Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! The Supreme Court of Florida is now in session. All who have cause to plea, draw near, give attention, and you shall be heard. God save these United States, this great State of Florida, and this honorable Court. Ladies and gentlemen, the Florida Supreme Court. Please be seated.

10 Chief Justice s Script 1. The Court is ready to hear the case of State of Florida v. Justin Barber. 2. Are the attorneys ready to proceed? (Wait for the attorneys to answer YES.) 3. Attorneys for the Petitioner may begin (2 minutes each attorney) (You now become a regular justice asking questions. After both attorneys have their turn, move on to #4.) 4. Attorneys for the Respondent may begin (2 minutes each attorney) (You now become a regular justice asking questions again. After both attorneys have their turn, move on to #.5) 5. Attorneys for the Petitioner may present rebuttal (1 minute total) (You now become a regular justice asking questions again. After the petitioner s attorney present their one minute rebuttal, move on to #6.) 6. Attorneys, thank you for your arguments. The Court will announce its decision shortly.

11 Clerk (place on Clerk s desk) After the arguments, the Justices will vote on the case. Count the votes for the Petitioner (John) and Respondent (State of Florida). READ: The Florida Supreme Court has reached a decision in this case. By a vote of to the Court rules in favor of the.

12 Vote Sheet Votes: The GPS Chief Justice Justice 2 Justice 3 Justice 4 Justice 5 Justice 6 Justice 7

13 Court Decisions USSC United States v. Jones (2011) In a similar case, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering the same arguments. Oral arguments were held on November 8, Question Presented: Whether the warrantless use of a tracking device on respondent's vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment. USSC Docket:

The Dog Sniff Case Fourth Amendment United States Constitution

The Dog Sniff Case Fourth Amendment United States Constitution Fourth Amendment United States Constitution The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no