Tuesday, January 24, 2012

The United States Supreme Court Scores a Great Victory For The Fourth Amendment Protection Against Unreasonable Searches, and Again Justice Scalia Becomes a Champion of Criminal Defendants.


On January 23, 2012, the United States Court ruled that the placement of a Global Tracking Device or System on a suspect’s vehicle for 28 days violated the suspect’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In the case, U.S. v. Antoine Jones, Washington D.C. police suspecting that Mr. Jones was involved in a cocaine-selling operation, placed a tracking device on Mr. Jones’s Jeep Grand Cherokee and tracked Mr. Jones’ movements for 28 days.  At trial the prosecutor used that information to secure his conviction, which resulted in the court imposing a life-sentence of imprisonment.  The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned his conviction holding that the amount of information obtained through the GPS tracking device violated Mr. Jones’s Fourth Amendment rights to the Constitution.  The Supreme Court affirmed, and Justice Scalia writing for the majority held that monitoring a vehicle’s movements without a judicial warrant constitutes a search.

The decision by the nation’s highest court sends a signal to law enforcement in the United States that they can no longer track a vehicle with such devices without a court warrant approved by a judicial magistrate.  This is great news for New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorneys who have been waiting in anticipation for this decision.  Criminal Defense attorneys here in New Jersey and other states have anxiously waited from our highest court to signal whether they would be increase the constitutional protections as set forth in the Bill of Rights which prohibits the States or government from using excessive and unreasonable surveillance techniques as now available to law enforcement.  Similarly, based on this decision it can also be argued and inferred that the placing of a tracking device on a suspect’s computer, without a court order, to track someone’s website history would likewise be held to be unconstitutional.

Also, this case appears to be in conflict with a recent New Jersey Appellate Division case, State v. Earls, ____ N.J. Super. _____ (App. Div. 2011) which allows law enforcement in New Jersey to track a suspect’s location data through cell-phone towers without a judicial warrant. 

Lastly, with this new decision the question is now posed is whether law enforcement in this State can use toll cameras, E-ZPass, and surveillance videos (which are numerous on major highways in the State of New Jersey), to track suspects accused of, or suspected of committing crimes?

The decision raises serious questions as to whether these surveillance devices present on our major highways also violate our Fourth Amendment protections.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr. 
A New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney who has 21 years of experience and skill to fight for your acquittal, and achieve your not guilty verdict.

(908) 354-7006
Dated: January 24, 2012
 
New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney, New Jersey Criminal Defense Lawyers, Union Essex Bergen Passaic Hudson  Criminal Defense Attorneys.