7 Comments

1. Hey all! Just discovered this valuable find of a site and had to share the excitement. As a personal injury legal counsel, coming across a spot filled with useful information is like striking gold. Thrilled to reveal my very own site , where personal injury law meets straightforward discussions. Explore for a new perspective on your rights and navigating the legal labyrinth. Cheers to the discovery and judicial empowerment.
   [url=https://amicuslegalgroup.com/ontario-car-accident-lawyer/][color=black_url]Legal support for affected individuals of motorcycle accidents[/color][/url]

   Reply

2. Throughout the case, the government’s argument was rejected that no physical trespass occurred because the GPS device was attached to the vehicle’s exterior. Instead, the majority emphasized the prolonged and comprehensive nature of the surveillance, which intruded upon Jones’s reasonable expectation of privacy. This case underscored the importance of protecting individuals from unwarranted and prolonged government surveillance, reaffirming Fourth Amendment principles in the digital age.

   Reply

3. The fact is that a person charged of a crime will probably use a raw deal, without having the service of a reliable attorney. Therefore, if you or a relative happens to be charged of committing a criminal activity, don’t waver to contact certainly one of our Los Angeles county criminal defense law firm specialists. Our team Our firm one fill every ranks using the top rated professional intellects in the community. All of us of professional workers are extremely proficient in what the law states together with bureaucratic procedure that complicates a amounts of felony predicaments. Our criminal defense legal representatives are true masters. These law firms must not pass personal judgment on a customer charged with cruel crimes such as for example murder, rape and even child molestation. They have to and to the best of their capability defend a customer who they could really think to be accountable associated with crime for which they are charged. Again, they need to put away personal values plus views and protect a customer that’s been faced with committing unspeakable acts. Subsequently, learning to be a criminal defense attorney not just usually takes effort but true character to defending every single man or woman’s defenses granted underneath the law. Every instance provides its very own particular sets of difficulties regardless of which region of the court room your very own defendant is. Along with all sorts of law you will find pros and cons, however with criminal law the majority seem to simply begin to see the cons. Often there is the possibility of a unjust conviction, a mistrial as part of a remarkably crucial case, or the risks of coping with severe felon, particularly their own profession and various criminal resources of large revenue. Many legal professionals will agree totally that there is certainly a long directory of disadvantages, and unfavorable feedback that go along with the position, but most effective legal professionals appear to be in a position to see after dark rough words and measures, and therefore are able to start to see the good that is released of practicing criminal law. The great verdicts which additionally prove your potential clients pureness to your neighborhood, all of the the cases and clients, together with power to be cross investigating witnesses into the court room almost every 24 hours, usually are considered. if you’d like to read more about your topic area check excellent karate business: [url=https://amicuslegalgroup.com/chino-hills-personal-injury-lawyer/[color=#000_url]nursing license defense attorney los angeles surrounding Riverside CA[/color][/url]

   Reply

4. The truth is an individual implicated with a crime will probably collect a raw offer, without having the options of a reliable attorney. Therefore, if you or a relative has been accused of committing a wrongdoing, do not waver to contact certainly one of our Los Angeles county criminal defense lawyer gurus. Our force Our firm exclusively occupy all of our ranks because of the number one legal psyche in the neighborhood. Our team of judiciary experts have become proficient in the law therefore the red-tape that complicates a number of criminal incidents. Our criminal defense legal professionals are true pros. These lawyers must not pass personal judgment on a customer charged with brutal offenses such as for instance murder, rape as well as child molestation. They need to also to the very best of their ability defend a customer which they might specifically imagine to be guilty of this crime in which they truly are charged. Once more, they have to put away personal beliefs and ideas and protect a customer that’s been faced with committing atrocious behaviors. Subsequently, getting to be a criminal defense legal representative not merely will take efforts however true character to defending each and every man or woman’s defenses granted underneath the law. Each case offers a unique distinct sets of problems despite which side of the court room your very own client is found. Along with all types of law you will find advantages and disadvantages, however with criminal law more seem to simply start to see the cons. There’s always the alternative of a unlawful sentence, a mistrial as part of a really crucial case, and the risks of dealing with destructive villain, notably their particular bread and butter and differing criminal sources of large profits. Many counselors could concur that there is certainly more information on cons, then damaging suggestions that stick to the career, but the majority happy lawyers appear to be able to see beyond the severe words and practices, and tend to be able to begin to see the good that is released of exercising criminal law. The great verdicts which additionally establish your customers purity into the subdivision, all of the the cases and clients, therefore the power to be cross investigating witnesses into the court room virtually every afternoon, are often considered. If you wish to completely learn more about this informative article topic area take a look at our karate website online: [url=https://amicuslegalgroup.com/chino-hills-car-accident-lawyer/[color=#000_url]los angeles paraplegia lawyers common causes and liability explained all-around Rialto California[/color][/url]

   Reply

5. hi. please visit to my blog too violent.my.id

   Reply

6. […] United States v. Jones 2011 […]

   Reply

7. Deleted userNov 22, 2016
   Jones argued the tracker was illegal without a warrant and therefore violated his fourth amendment rights
   Reply
   Kevin Lyles
   Deleted user
   Deleted userNov 8, 2016
   https://www.c-span.org/video/?302576-1/us-v-jones-oral-argument

   Above is the oral argument for the case.

   https://prezi.com/rkuicjrjjkgn/united-states-v-jones/

   Above is a prezi presentation that summarizes the case.
   Reply
   Deleted user
   Deleted userNov 8, 2016
   This is the oral argument in US v Jones

   https://www.c-span.org/video/?302576-1/us-v-jones-oral-argument
   Reply
   Deleted user
   Deleted userNov 8, 2016
   Facts: Antoine Jones was arrested for drug possession after police attached a tracker to his car, without judicial approval, and followed him for a month. A jury found Jones not guilty on all counts except they were hung for his conspiracy charge. The district prosecutors the re-filed a single count of conspiracy against Jones and his business partner, Lawrence Maynard, of which they were found guilty. However a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the Supreme Court specifically stated in a similar case from 1983 that using a beeper to track a suspect cannot justify 24-hour surveillance of someone without a warrant.
   Reply
   Marisol Campos
   Marisol CamposNov 11, 2015
   Facts

   Respondent Jones was an owner and operator of a nightclub and came under suspicion of narcotics trafficking. Based on information gathered through various investigative techniques, police were granted a warrant authorizing use of a GPS tracking device on the Jeep registered to Jones’ wife (of which Jones was the exclusive driver), but failed to comply with the warrant’s deadline. Police installed the tracking device on the undercarriage of the Jeep and used it to track the vehicle’s movements. By satellite, the device established the vehicle’s location within 50 to 100 feet and communicated the location by cell phone to a government computer, relaying more than 2,000 pages of data over a 28-day period. The government ultimately obtained an indictment against Jones which included charges of conspiracy to distribute cocaine.

   Issue
   Does the attachment of a GPS tracking device to a vehicle and subsequent use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements on public streets constitute a search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment?

   Rule / Holding
   Yes. Affirmed. The government’s installation and use of a GPS device to track the vehicle’s movements constituted a “search.”

   Reasoning
   Scalia argued that the government’s physical intrusion on Jones’s car (a personal “effect”) would clearly be a search within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment, which for most of its history was particularly concerned with government trespass on private property for the purpose of finding something or obtaining information.
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   Deleted user
   Deleted userNov 11, 2015
   While I generally agree with the decision of the Court, I believe Justice Alito’s opinion, that the attachment of the GPS tracker is a violation of the 4th amendment specifically because it violated Jones’ reasonable expectations of privacy, is a better way to view the constitutional issue at hand, as opposed to an argument based on the fact that it was a trespass onto property. It has been established already that law enforcement cannot search property without a warrant, so that is an easier argument to make, but the concept of reasonable expectations of privacy is the area that now, in the 21st century, needs to be addressed and solidified.
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   Deleted user
   Deleted userNov 11, 2015
   In my opinion, a simple GPS device does very little in invading privacy compared to other technology that they could have used. Yes, it is a breach of privacy but what should we define as privacy? Because of the very advancing technology, were do we set the limit?
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   Deleted user
   Deleted userNov 11, 2015
   It seems fitting that the government would argue that there should not be an expectation of privacy with regard to a persons movement on public property. Think of the mechanisms of surveillance that go above and beyond a mere GPS tracking device such as aerial surveillance.

   To accept the government’s argument would greatly expand the (legal) capability for the government to conduct surveillance on public property, and while the Court did rule in favor of Jones, Justice Alito significantly argues that a “reasonable expectation of privacy” would be a more appropriate focus as the mere trespassing onto property is quite limited in scope.

   Of course, if one is being observed through means of aerial surveillance without a warrant, one would find it difficult to prove, let alone file a lawsuit, in such a scenario given the invisibility of these means.

   Thomas Delregno
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   Deleted user
   Deleted userNov 11, 2015
   I agree with Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s concurring opinion where she adds that in this age of technology, invasion of privacy exceeds physical intrusion.
   “People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers, the URLS that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers, and the books, groceries and medications they purchase to online retailers . . . I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection.”
   I agree that warrantless GPS surveillance violates property and privacy rights.
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   Deleted user
   Deleted userNov 11, 2015
   I agree with the Court’s ruling in this case. The installing of the GPS device was a tress pass onto Jones’ personal effects and thus is considered a search. Since it was a search and there was no warrant the evidence should be inadmissible. I believe the Court was correct in determining that a person’s movements in public have a certain expectation of privacy that should be protected.
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   Deleted user
   Deleted userNov 11, 2015
   The District Court ruled that, “data obtained while vehicle was parked at Jones’s residence” was not admissible, however data obtained when vehicle was on public streets was admissible because there is “no reasonable expectation of privacy in public.” Supreme Court ruled that, “Here, the Government’s physical intrusion on an “effect” for the purpose of obtaining information constitutes a “search” and therefore, is violation of Fourth Amendment search and seizure clause in it’s entirety.
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   Razan Abu
   Razan AbuNov 13, 2014
   “Having reached the conclusion that this was a search under the Fourth Amendment, the Court declined to examine whether the search could be “reasonable”, as they were not asked to do so. Also left unanswered was the broader question surrounding the constitutionality of the warrantless use of GPS data absent a physical intrusion – as might occur, for example, with the electronic collection of GPS data from wireless service providers or factory-installed vehicle tracking and navigation services. These open questions remain to be decided by some future case.”
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   Deleted user
   Deleted userNov 13, 2014
   Agree with this reasoning, long term gps surveillance is an infringement of the fourth amendment.

   Steven Bidochka
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   Deleted user
   Deleted userNov 12, 2014
   The Court rejected the government’s argument that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a person’s movement on public property. I completely agree with the courts decision
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   Deleted user
   Deleted userNov 12, 2014
   I would have to agree with Justice Sotomayer that the long-term GPS surveillance was a violation of Jones’s privacy.

   -Rachel Gilmore
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   B Bhatti
   B BhattiNov 12, 2014
   All justices believed there was something wrong here, but the difference in the ruling was based on WHY. Concurring opinion was that a “trespass purported to obtain information” was a search; the dissenting opinion was that long-term monitoring was a violation of ‘search and seizure,’ as it told a different story than a simple short-term monitoring. Only one justice (Sotomayer) said that warrentless GPS surveillance was a violation of privacy.
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   Deleted user
   Deleted userNov 12, 2014
   The case had a 9-0 holding, which favored for Jones.

   – Aashiqui Lad
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   Deleted user
   Deleted userNov 12, 2014
   Case Brief
   United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, 565 U.S. _ (2012)

   FACTS OF THE CASE:
   -The officers placed the night club under surveillance. They also obtained phone records of Jones’.
   -Finally, the Police installed a GPS tracking device to a car used primarily by Jones (the car belonged to his wife). .
   – The warrant stated that the officers must 1.) install the device within 10 days of the date the warrant was issued (It was installed on the 11th day) 2.) install the device in D.C (it was installed in a public parking lot in Maryland)
   -The device showed the location of the car only while it was moving, and did not show the driver of the vehicle, what the occupants were doing and with whom the occupant(s) were meeting. The government could receive the data instantly with a cellular device.
   – Jones was indicted on drug trafficking conspiracy charges. The District Court suppressed the GPS data obtained while the vehicle was parked at Jones’s home, but held the remaining data admissible because Jones had no reasonable expectation of privacy when the vehicle was on public streets
   – the appeals court reversed this decision on the grounds that due to the length of time of the surveillance (several months) the driver had reasonable expectation of privacy that ALL of his movements would not be monitored.

   ISSUES:
   1.) Whether governments use of a GPS tracking device in this case violates the Fourth Amendment search and seizure clause.
   2.) Whether the attachment of a GPS tracking device to a vehicle to monitor the vehicle’s movements on public streets constitute a search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment?
   DECISION: YES. YES. lower Court Decision Upheld

   RATIONALE OF THE COURT:
   -the Government’s physical intrusion on an “effect” for the purpose of obtaining information constitutes a “search.” This type of encroachment on an area enumerated in the Amendment would have been considered a search within the meaning of the Amendment at the time it was adopted.

   Christen Lee
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document

   Reply