hen, in Katz v. United States, the Court established the right to privacy as a defense against warrantless searches.

In Carroll v. United States the Supreme Court held that vehicles were held to a lesser standard of Fourth Amendment protection stating that a warrant wasn’t required.  Then, in Katz v. United States, the Court established the right to privacy as a defense against warrantless searches.  Fast forward 45 years after the Katz decision and we have the United States v. Jones case. This case was an appeal from the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals that went on to the Supreme Court, on the issue of whether a warrant is needed to attach a GPS tracking device to a vehicle.

Please review the summaries of these three cases by clicking on the name of the case above. 

Is it a reasonable progression based on the Court’s analysis to require a warrant before the government places a GPS on a vehicle? Why or why not? 

Based on the Court’s interpretation of the right to privacy under the 4th Amendment, should a warrant be required to place a GPS? Why or why not? 

Assuming that a warrant is required, what are the exceptions to this requirement that might apply when the government legally places a GPS on a vehicle? 

250 words

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *