United States vs. Antoine Jones - Article Example

In 2004, law enforcement officials started their investigation of Antoine Jones, who is a nightclub owner, for suspicion of drug trafficking. Upon obtaining information that a number of surveillance sources suspected that Jones might be part of storing and transporting illegal drugs, law enforcement agents installed tracking devices that would track Jones’ movements. This was done without the use of a warrant for the GPS device. They (agents) managed to obtain a warrant that would be valid for ten days, and the GPS were valid in the district of Colombia. The agents installed the GPS tracking system after 11 days of the warrant. They monitored the activities of Jones and his family for a month, and collected data to try to link Jones to any drug safe houses. After collecting the surveillance data and information, the agents obtained an arrest warrant for Jones, and found a significant amount of cocaine and other Drug paraphernalia in Jones’ possession. (Bill Mears, "Justices rule against police") United States vs. Antoine Jones is a case that looks at the government’s ability to conduct warrantless GPS tracking, in the case of a suspected criminal vehicle. The case looks into partial elements of the fourth amendment, and the case would have an impact on cases that related to the use of technological advances in investigations and the techniques used by the police in assessing potential criminals. The supreme court had previous rulings on such matters for instance, United States vs. Knotts in 1983, where a person travelling in a vehicle on a public road had no expectation of privacy in their movement from one place to another. Regarding Antoine Jones, this ideology or ruling is questioned; the court identified that a search (by police) can be carried out in a manner that an individual does not expect other people to monitor and maintain a record of the movements of the person whenever they drive a car’ (which borders the element of ‘stalking’). It was to be done in accordance with the government engaging in a dragnet-type of law enforcement. This was evident in the case of United States vs. Maynard (2010). (Jess Bravin, "Justices Rein In Police on GPS Trackers") The Supreme Court has reviewed the D.C. circuit’s perception on privacy, which was interesting. D.C. Circuit stated that the case did not challenge the nature of warrantless GPS tracking, stating that it did not intrude on any case of privacy. They considered it a broader measure of law enforcement techniques. D.C. circuit stated that it was a discrete method of collecting discrete public information for a given period. D.C. Circuit considered it to be a technique of investigation similar to the New York Camera Network. The latter is a network of 200 cameras in New York that tracks and monitors roughly 8.2 million people in New York (Bill Mears, "Justices rule against police"). They considered it to be a measure of establishing whether Antoine Jones was involved in any drug trafficking activities. The case may be evidential as to how the law enforcement agencies over-step their boundary, concerning ethical and law adhering elements of operation. There was a clear violation of the laws, and they were done in a way that suggests that the agents were acting in accordance to personal judgment, rather than following the parameters that have been established by the law. It serves to prove that the law enforcement agencies operate above the rather than follow the established components that rules and regulations of the United States. It can be determined that they were in the right, operating above the law and finding that Jones was in possession of drugs. However, their method of operation implies that they operated in contradiction of the law (Jess Bravin, "Justices Rein In Police on GPS Trackers"). I find it ironical for agents to operate against the law, when their job is to ensure that citizens of the US abide by rules and regulations of the country (the Laws). Based on a personal perspective, I believe that the agents are not justified in acting against the laws of the US. I say this because every person should be judged and tried in accordance to the laws, and violating them implies a failure to follow them. The laws of the country should not apply to a particular group of people. The agent should not be allowed to violate the laws and should operate in accordance to the laws. Violation of privacy without the proper documentation should be considered illegal, regardless of whether it is the preservers of the law or followers of the law. The family of Jones was violated as they used the Jeep that was under surveillance, which means that the agents were in violation of their rights to privacy. The case demonstrates how privacy can be violated, and it serves to question whether there is any true nature of privacy for an individual. The evidence of the drugs did not tie Jones to any drug safe house, which affected the findings of the agents. In conclusion, the case is a demonstration of a lack of adherence to both the law and privacy. The agents clearly operated above the law and their action should be called into question, as they served to affect the privacy of Jones’ family, who were not part of their investigation. Even though they managed to obtain drugs in Jones’ car, they should follow the rights channels for carrying out their investigation. Invasion of privacy should be carried out if a law enforcement agency can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, they the person in question is probably guilty of the act. Work Cited: Bill, Mears. Justices rule against police, say GPS surveillance requires search warrant, CNN. Web. 23 Jan. 2012 Bravin, Jess. Justices Rein In Police on GPS Trackers, the Wall Street Journal. Web. 24 Jan. 2012. Read More