United States vs Jones (Unwarranted GPS tracking of an individual)

I touched on this decision in Quick Thoughts as a victory for the Fourth Amendment (Fourth Amendment Victory (Quick Thoughts) in regards to unwarranted GPS tracking of an individual. Now I want to dive a little bit deeper into it, in regards to the Founding influences and how they were applied to this case. You can read the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) opinion and additional concurrence opinions here¹ (Cornell University Law School).

The Supreme Court's opinion was written by Justice Scalia and is the main one of focus here. Additional concurrence opinions were also written by Justices Sotomayor and Alito who had differing reasons based on precedent however, reaching the same conclusion.

Synopsis

The Government obtained a search warrant permitting it to install a Global-Positioning-System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle registered to respondent Jones’s wife. The warrant authorized installation in the District of Columbia and within 10 days, but agents installed the device on the 11th day and in Maryland. The Government than tracked the vehicle’s movements for 28 days. It subsequently secured an indictment of Jones and others on drug trafficking conspiracy charges. The District Court suppressed the GPS data obtained while the vehicle was parked at Jones’s residence, but held the remaining data admissible because Jones had no reasonable expectation of privacy when the vehicle was on public streets. Jones was convicted. The D. C. Circuit reversed, concluding that admission of the evidence obtained by warrantless use of the GPS device violated the Fourth Amendment. (sic from SCOTUS ruling)

Fourth Amendment Victory (Quick Thoughts)

Today the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rules law enforcement agencies may not track your privately owned vehicle with a GPS device, unless authorized by a warrant. The decision was unanimous and correct. For starters the Fourth Amendment was designed as a method to prevent the government from intruding into the private matters or property of individuals or groups unless proper cause could be justified BEFORE hand in a warrant, not the other way around.

To often the Bill of Rights has been viewed as the limit of individual or group rights, defining the limit up to what government can do, but it was not designed to do this. The Bill of Rights was designed to specifically prohibit certain actions to further limit what government may do. The Federal Government was bound by certain limits in the Constitution, and a strong argument against the Bill of Rights was that it may end up expanding Government powers, by claiming what was not specifically protected, such as this case. (see Bill of Rights or limitations).

Even though the exact specification of tracking citizens is not specifically prohibited by name in the Fourth Amendment, the concept of it being prohibited is. A person or group CAN NOT be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects if every move that person or possession is tracked. You vehicle is your effect, and you are guaranteed to be secure in it from unwarranted searches or seizures. By monitoring its every move in such a manner it is to make the effect and person unsecure from the government, effectively a search of the effect and person.

Not only is government prohibited from warrantless searches and seizures specifically in the Fourth Amendment, but this also has Ninth Amendment implications as well, that to be free from government monitoring is one of the "other rights retained by the people". This Amendment was designed to prevent such a move by the government that usurps the intention and motivation of the Bill of Rights, to protect every right retained by all people not just those specifically cited in the previous eight Amendments.

British Tyranny, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, The Origins of the Bill of Rights (Part 6:)

The ninth and 10th amendment to the Constitution of the United States have very deep roots. Roots that go back to the principal of what the structure of power is. The belief of the founders was a structure power went from the creator, to the people, to government in that order. A lot of world history and specifically Western history influence founding fathers, from the Greek and Roman empires Socrates and Aristotle, to John Locke and Charles Montesquieu. Though British tyranny did have influence in the development of the ninth and 10th amendments you have to go back to philosophy to understand the meaning behind the motivation of the ninth and 10th amendments. It can be summed up with natural rights and the proper order power. These basic values are the principal motivators behind the ninth and 10th amendments.

Here we will look at specifically natural rights and the order of power, without going through the entire genesis of human history, this will start with John Locke and his Second Treatises of government, and also Spirit of Laws by Montesquieu. Both authors and philosophers influence can be seen on founding fathers pre-revolutionary colonial history and writings, revolutionary history writings, early state governments, early charters, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States. These philosophers had a profound impact on the founding fathers just in themselves, and British tyranny and oppression only made these beliefs stronger.

British Tyranny, the Seventh and Eighth Amendments, The Origins of the Bill of Rights (Part 5:)

Both the seventh and eighth amendments to the United States Constitution deal of trials, one criminal and one civil. Just like the previous amendments to the Constitution the seventh and eighth amendment could also find their legacy in the British monarchy and how it dealt with the American colonies. Just as with each of the previous amendments the Genesis can directly be traced to tyranny, and are listed as grievances in the Declaration of Independence against King George.

The Seventh Amendment:

In suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

As mentioned in Part 4 in regards sixth amendment, the right to trial the jury has a long history. But the seventh amendment deals lawsuits where the value of the dispute is greater than $20, not criminal trials. The Constitution ensures the right to trial by jury in criminal cases in Article  III Section 2 and is reinforced sixth amendment to Civil cases. But no guarantee had been given that trial by jury would also be guaranteed in civil cases.

The seventh amendment carries two parts, one in regards to trials by jury in civil suits, and the second the decisions of the jury shall not be dismissed other than to the rules of common law.

Corporations are not people, but that is irrelevant: (quick thoughts)

As we all know there is a new set of protests going on throughout the country the Occupy Wall Street movement. Now I will not get into the politics of these protests, but there is one sign in particular that caught my attention "corporations are not people". The reason this one caught my interest is the implications that it appears to be presenting, that corporations do not deserve the same protections as an individual. While they are not an individual they do have protections.

In regards to Constitutional rights  whether  we are talking about individual or corporation is irrelevant. The reason for this is the Constitution makes no distinction between an individual or a corporatio in the protection of rights. The Constitution, mainly the Bill of Rights, only list prohibited actions by government, not who or what is protected it lists  and this is what is of  importance. For example the First Amendment states the following "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the   government for a redress of grievances". The First Amendment makes no distinction or even specifically says who speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble or grievances are protected, it only states Laws cannot be made to limit it. tThe one thing that needs to be kept in mind is the Bill of Rights is not listing what people's rights are, it is listing additional  prohibitions to government specifically Congress. The Bill of Rights is not a list of what people's rights are, it is a list of very specific protections, it is a list of further limitations on government.