Explain the Court holding in United States v. Knotts dealing with beepers and the Court holding in United States v. Jones dealing with a GPS device. Are they in conflict? What does the Court say about the old concept on the issue of constitutionality of electronic surveillance?
What will be an ideal response?
In United States v. Knotts, the Court held that the use of tracking devices (beeper)
to keep track of a person traveling on public roads does not constitute a search,
because a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy when traveling on a
public thoroughfare. In United States v. Jones, the Court held that attaching a
global positioning system (GPS) device to a motor vehicle and using that device to
monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
They are not in conflict because they both stated such devices could be used on
public highways. The problem arises when the vehicle is on private property, such
as in Jones, when the vehicle was parked in the defendant's driveway. This was
based on the old concept of property.
You might also like to view...
Valid fire inspections must be_______in relation to the timing of the fire
A. Only after getting a search warrant B. Only after gaining permission of the owner C. Completed during the firefighting process D. contemporaneous
Crime prevention is a relatively new idea
a. True b. False Indicate whether the statement is true or false
This Supreme Court case found that the totality of prison conditions should not become so deplorable as to violate constitutional expectations for inmates.
a. Palmigiano v. Garrahy(1977) b. Morris v. Travisono(1970) c. Holt v. Sarver (1969) d. Farmer v. Brennan (1994)
Drug __________ can refer to the illegal shipment of controlled substances across national boundaries
Fill in the blank(s) with the appropriate word(s).