United States v. Jones
- Federal Court Finds Fourth Amendment Protects Cell Phone Location Data: A federal court in California ruled that police must get a warrant before obtaining a user's location records. The court found individuals have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their cell phone location data, based on the Supreme Court's recent decisions in United States v. Jones and Riley v. California. These records, the court found, can be even "more invasive" than the "GPS device attached to the defendant's car in Jones." EPIC has filed amicus curiae briefs in the New Jersey Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that the Fourth Amendment protects an individual's locational privacy. (Aug. 4, 2015)
- U.S. Supreme Court Tosses Out North Carolina Lifetime GPS Tracking: Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a per curium opinion vacating the decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court in Grady v. North Carolina. Grady challenged a court order requiring a "satellite-based [GPS] monitoring program for the duration of his natural life." The North Carolina court ruled that this was not a Fourth Amendment search. However, the U.S. Supreme Court tossed that ruling aside, finding it contrary to recent decisions in United States v. Jones and Florida v. Jardines. EPIC filed an amicus brief in Jones, joined by many leading technical experts and legal scholars. The Court held in that case that continuous GPS tracking constituted a search. (Mar. 30, 2015)
- Supreme Court Allows Warrantless Search of Home: In a case that narrows the warrant requirement for searches of homes, the Supreme Court upheld the warrantless search of a suspect's home by the LAPD after the person objected. In Fernandez v. California, the officers returned to the apartment of the resident after he had been arrested, and obtained consent from a roommate to conduct a search. Justice Alito, writing for the 6-3 majority, found that the roommate's consent was sufficient once the defendant was no longer present. Justice Ginsburg, writing in a dissent joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, argued that the decision "tells the police they may dodge" the warrant requirement and is contrary to a prior a decision of the Court. In Georgia v. Randolph, the Supreme Court previously ruled that when one occupant refuses to consent to a search, the other's consent is not sufficient to permit a search. EPIC has previously filed amicus briefs in a number of important Supreme Court Fourth Amendment cases. For more information, see EPIC: United States v. Jones, EPIC: Maryland v. King, EPIC: Amicus Curiae Briefs. (Feb. 26, 2014)
- EPIC Files Suit for FBI "Sting Ray" Cell Phone Tracking Documents: EPIC has filed a FOIA lawsuit against the FBI for documents related to the Government's use of cell phone tracking technology, known as "Sting Ray.".For more than 15 years the FBI has used cell-site simulator technology to track the location of a cell phones and other communications devices. Cell-site simulators act like a fake cell towers and can be used to monitor and track cell phone users even when the device is not in use. The technique also tracks all individuals in a region, irregardless of whether they are the suspect in an investigation. Government attorneys have recently fought against the discovery of documents related to the use of these devices. In February 2012, EPIC filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FBI, but so far the agency has not responded or disclosed any documents as required by law. EPIC has recently filed amicus curiae briefs in Supreme Court, and Federal Court cases related to Government location tracking. For more information see: EPIC: Locational Privacy, EPIC: US v. Jones and EPIC: In re US Application for Historic Cell-Site Location Information. (Apr. 27, 2012)
- EPIC Urges Court to Uphold Location Privacy in Cell Phone Tracking Case: EPIC filed a "Friend of the Court" brief in the Fifth Circuit urging the court to uphold Fourth Amendment protections for cell phone users. In the case, In re US for Historical Cell-Site Data, the lower court held that the disclosure of historical cell phone location records without a warrant would violate the Fourth Amendment. EPIC argued that this opinion should be upheld in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Jones, because cell phone location records are collected without the knowledge or consent of users. The records in this case, EPIC argued, create a "comprehensive map of an individual’s movements, activities, and relationships, . . . precisely the type of information that individuals reasonably and justifiably believe will remain private." For more information, see In re Historical Cell-Site Location Information, EPIC: State v. Earls, and EPIC: US v. Jones. (Mar. 19, 2012)
- EPIC Urges Court to Uphold Location Privacy in Cell Phone Tracking Case: EPIC filed a "friend of the court" brief in the New Jersey Supreme Court urging the court to uphold Fourth Amendment protections for cell phone users. In State of New Jersey v. Thomas W. Earls, the lower court held that an individual has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the location of their cell phone. EPIC argued that the lower court opinion should be overturned in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Jones. The cell phone tracking techniques in this case, EPIC argued, "is more invasive than the GPS tracking in Jones." For more information, see EPIC: State v. Earls, and EPIC: US v. Jones. (Feb. 29, 2012)
- Supreme Court Upholds Fourth Amendment in GPS Tracking Case: Today the Supreme Court unanimously held in U.S. v. Jones that the warrantless use of a GPS tracking device by the police violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court said that a warrant is required "[w]here, as here, the government obtains information by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area," like a car. Concurring opinions by Justices Sotomayor and Alito urged the court to focus on the reasonableness of the suspect's expectation of privacy because physical intrusion is unnecessary to surveillance in the digital age. EPIC, joined by 30 legal and technical experts,filed a "friend of the court" brief. EPIC warned that, "it is critical that police access to GPS tracking be subject to a warrant requirement." For more information, see EPIC: US v. Jones, and EPIC: Location Privacy. (Jan. 23, 2012)
- Supreme Court to Hear Arguments in GPS Tracking Case: The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on November 8 to determine whether the warrantless use of a GPS tracking device by the police violates the Fourth Amendment. EPIC filed a "friend of the court" brief in US v. Jones, urging the Supreme Court to uphold robust Fourth Amendment protections. Along with 30 legal and technical experts, EPIC argued that 24-hour GPS surveillance by law enforcement constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment and requires judicial oversight. Arguing in support of a lower court decision, EPIC warned that, "it is critical that police access to GPS tracking be subject to a warrant requirement." The Supreme Court will consider both whether persistent GPS tracking constitutes a "search" and also whether the installation of a GPS tracking device on a private vehicle is a "seizure." For more information, see EPIC: US v. Jones, and EPIC: Location Privacy. (Nov. 4, 2011)
- EPIC Urges Supreme Court to Uphold Fourth Amendment in GPS Case: EPIC filed a "friend of the court" brief in the United States Supreme Court urging the Court to limit the scope of pervasive GPS surveillance by upholding robust Fourth Amendment protections. Along with 30 legal and technical experts, EPIC argued that 24-hour GPS surveillance by law enforcement constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. US v. Jones involves the government's use, without a judicial warrant, of a GPS device to track a person "24/7." The lower court held that "the use of the GPS device violated [Jones'] 'reasonable expectation of privacy,' and was therefore a search subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment." Arguing in support of the earlier decision, EPIC said "it is critical that police access to GPS tracking be subject to a warrant requirement." For more information, see EPIC: US v. Jones, and EPIC: Locational Privacy. (Oct. 3, 2011)
- Federal Judge: Locational Data Protected Under Fourth Amendment: A Federal judge has ruled that to law enforcement officers must have a warrant to access cell phone locational data. Courts are divided regarding whether or not this type of data should be protected by a warrant requirement. Judge Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York, found that "The fiction that the vast majority of the American population consents to warrantless government access to the records of a significant share of their movements by 'choosing' to carry a cell phone must be rejected In light of drastic developments in technology, the Fourth Amendment doctrine must evolve to preserve cell-phone user's reasonable expectation of privacy in cumulative cell-site-location records." EPIC has filed amicus briefs in several related cases. For more information see: EPIC: Commonwealth v. Connolly, EPIC: US v. Jones, and EPIC: Locational Privacy. (Aug. 25, 2011)
- High Court To Decide Major GPS Tracking Case: The Supreme Court will decide if warrantless locational tracking violates the Fourth Amendment. The Court granted review of a District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals opinion on two legal questions. The first is whether police need a warrant to monitor the movements of a car with a tracking device. The second is whether policy can legally install such a device without their target's consent, and without a valid warrant. EPIC previously filed an amicus brief in Commonwealth v. Connolly, a Massachusetts case which established that the state Constitution prohibited warrentless GPS tracking. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial court imposed time limits on GPS monitoring, ruling that warrants will expire fifteen days after they are issued. For more information, see EPIC: US v. Jones and EPIC: Locational Privacy. (Jun. 27, 2011)
- (1) Whether the warrantless use of a tracking device on petitioner's vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment.
- (2) Whether the government violated respondent's Fourth Amendment rights by installing the GPS tracking device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent.
The issue presented in Jones is whether the government can constitutionally install or use a GPS device to track a person's movements in his vehicle without a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. The government engages in this investigatory technique frequently, and the federal circuits are divided on whether the practice violates the Fourth Amendment.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) installed a GPS tracking device on Antoine Jones’s car while it was parked in a public lot. The FBI then used the device to track his vehicle’s movements continuously for one month. Jones’s conviction for conspiring to distribute cocaine was partially based on the location data generated by the GPS device. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed Jones’s conviction in the consolidated case, United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010). The court found that the warantless GPS tracking was a search and violated the Fourth Amendment. The court did not address whether the GPS device’s warantless installation also constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment.
To determine whether a government action constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, courts ask whether the investigated person had an expectation of privacy and whether society would view that expectation as reasonable. E.g., Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 437, 361 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring); Maynard, 615 F.3d at 555. The D.C. Circuit did not explicitly analyze whether Jones had a subjective expectation of privacy, but it assumed that he did. When analyzing this factor, the Supreme Court considers whether a person took outward actions to shield his activity from the public. E.g. , Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 28-29 (2001); Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445, 450 (1989).
The District of Columbia Circuit
The court did explicitly analyze whether society would view Jones’s expectation of privacy as reasonable. One thing courts have considered when analyzing this factor is whether the expectation relates to information that was exposed to the public. E.g. , United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 281-82 (1983); Katz, 389 U.S. at 351; Maynard, 615 F.3d at 558. The D.C. Circuit found that Jones’s actions were not actually exposed to the public, even though they all physically took place in public, because “the likelihood a stranger would observe all those movements is not just remote, it is essentially nil.” Maynard, 615 F.3d at 560. The court also found that the totality of Jones’ movements were not constructively exposed to the public, even though each individual trip took place in public, because “the whole of one’s movements over the course of a month . . . reveals far more than the individual movements it comprises.” Maynard, 615 F.3d at 561-62. Instead, the court recognized that a reasonable person expects each of his movements over the course of a month to remain “disconnected and anonymous.” Maynard, 615 F.3d at 563 (quoting Nader v. General Motors, 253 N.E. 2d 765, 772 (N.Y. 1970)). The court concluded that Jones had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements and that the GPS tracking constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment.
The D.C. Circuit distinguished Jones’ facts from those in the Supreme Court’s earlier decision on locational tracking, United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). The Court in Knotts ruled that it did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment for law enforcement to install a tracking beeper in a can of chloroform and use the beeper to track the car transporting it along public highways for a single trip. The Court held that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy on public roads because the car’s movements were knowingly exposed to the public and could have been observed with the naked eye. Knotts, 460 U.S. at 276-77.
The D.C. Circuit differentiated between tracking a car for a single trip in Knotts and tracking all of Jones’ trips over the course of a month. The court interpreted Knotts to reserve the question of whether a warrant is required for twenty-four hour tracking when the Supreme Court said, “If such dragnet-type law enforcement practices . . . should eventually occur, there will be time enough then to determine whether different constitutional principles may be applicable.” Maynard, 615 F.3d at 556 (quoting Knotts, 460 U.S. at 283-84).
The Supreme Court Certiorari Petition
The government argued in its petition for certiorari, however, that the Supreme Court does not take issue with prolonged surveillance and that Knotts should govern the Court’s analysis. In United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705, 715 (1984), agents placed a tracking beeper in a can of ether and used it to track the can over five months. Unlike the GPS device that tracked Jones, the beeper in Karo did not track the can for twenty-four hours a day. See, Karo, 469 U.S. at 708-10. The Court held that when the beeper transmitted the can’s location from inside a private residence, a place not subject to visual surveillance, the tracking constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. Karo, 468 U.S. at 706. The government’s petition interprets the Court’s lack of analysis regarding the length of the monitoring in Karo to indicate that prolonged surveillance does not turn tracking into a search under the Fourth Amendment. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at 14-15, United States v. Jones, No. 10-1259 (U.S. Apr. 15, 2011).
After the D.C. Circuit overturned Jones’ conviction, the government petitioned the D.C. Circuit to rehear the case en banc. The court denied that petition. United States v. Jones, 625 F.3d 766 (D.C. Cir. 2010). The government then petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case and decide whether using the GPS device to track Jones’ vehicle constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. The Court granted certiorari on June 27, 2011 and added the question of whether installing the GPS device on Jones’ vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment.
The Supreme Court has also been petitioned to decide the GPS tracking issue in Pineda-Moreno v. United States, but it is holding the petition until Jones is decided. In that case, the government installed a GPS device to the underside of the defendant’s car while it was parked in public and used it to track the car for four months. The Ninth Circuit held that the GPS installation was not a search. The court reasoned that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in vehicles parked in public places or in the undercarriage of a vehicle because any member of the public could access those areas “to retrieve a lost ball or runaway cat.” United States v. Pineda-Moreno, 591 F.3d 1212, 1215 (9th Cir. 2010). The Ninth Circuit applied Knotts to also conclude that the GPS tracking was not a search because the location information could have been visually attained by following the car. Pineda-Moreno, 591 F.3d at 1216-17. The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing despite Judge Kozinski’s dissent. United States v. Pineda-Moreno, 617 F.3d 1120, 1121 (9th Cir. 2010).
Justice Scalia - The Opinion of the Court
Justice Scalia delivered the Opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Thomas, and Sotomayor, which held that "the Government's installation of a GPS device on a target's vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a search" under the Fourth Amendment. US v. Jones, 565 U.S. ___ at *3 (2012). The majority opinion made clear that the Government's physical occupation of "private property for the purpose of obtaining information," would have been considered a search "within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted." Id. at *4. Justice Scalia stressed that the holding, while narrow, made clear that the Fourth Amendment, at a minimum, protects from trespassory government searches. Justice Scalia noted that the property-based Fourth Amendment analysis does not foreclose the more expansive "reasonable expectation of privacy" analysis based on Katz v. United States, which has "been added to, not substituted for, the common-law trespassory test." Id. at *8. Under Justice Scalia's property-based analysis, the Government's key tracking cases, US v. Knotts and US v. Karo, were inapplicable and thus not controlling. Justice Scalia rejected Justice Alito's insistence on an exclusive Katz-based analysis because it would "needlessly lead us into 'particularly vexing problems' in the present case." Id. at *11. Yet, Justice Scalia's opinion did not forclose such analysis in future cases, and even noted "[i]t may be that achieving the same result [, surveillance of an individual's location over time,] ]through electronic means, without an accompanying trespass, is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy." Id.
Justice Alito - Concurring in the Judgment
A group of four Justices signed an opinion written by Justice Alito, concurring in the judgment but not opinion of Justice Scalia's majority. The primary thrust of Justice Alito's opinion is that the majority's reliance on "18th-century tort law" is ill suited to the current legal and technological landscape. Justice Alito "would have analyz[ed] the question presented in [Jones by asking whether respondent's reasonable expectation of privacy were violated by the long-term monitoring of the movements of the vehicle he drove." Id. at *2 (Alito, J. concurring in the judgment). The first two portions of Justice Alito's opinion focused on criticizing Justice Scalia's use of the property-based Fourth Amendment test. Justice Alito's opinion then identified four major problems presented by the majority approach, including the "particularly vexing problems [presented] in cases involving surveillance that is carried out by making electronic, as opposed to physical, contact with the item to be tracked." Id. at *9. Justice Alito argued that "[t]he Katz expectation-of-privacy test avoids the problems and complications noted above," but admitted that it is "not without its own difficulties" such as unstable privacy expectations that can change as technology evolves. Id. at *10. Justice Alito noted that "[a]fter Katz, Congress did not leave it to the courts to develop a body of Fourth Amendment case law governing that complex subject. Instead, Congress promptly enacted a comprehensive statute." Id. at *11. Indeed, Justice Alito makes clear that "[i]n circumstances involving dramatic technological change, the best solution to privacy concerns may be legislative." Id. at *13. But ultimately, Justice Alito's opinion held that "the use of longer term GPS monitoring in investigations of most offenses impinges on expectations of privacy," and even though he does not indicate precisely where the line between "short-term" and "long-term" monitoring lies, "the line was surely crossed before the 4-week mark." Id. at *13.
Justice Sotomayor - Concurring
Justice Sotomayor joined Justice Scalia's majority, but wrote an individual concurring opinion agreeing with the substance of Justice Alito's concurrence. This concurring opinion created a sort of dual-majority in the Jones decision. Justice Sotomayor agreed with the majority's conclusion that the property-based analysis represents an irreducible minimum of Fourth Amendment protection, which is not eliminated by the Katz reasonable expectation of privacy analysis. However, Justice Sotomayor also agreed with Justice Alito's conclusion that "at the very least, 'longer term GPS monitoring in investigations of most offenses impinges on expectations of privacy.'" Id. at *3 (Sotomayor, J. concurring). Justice Sotomayor went even further, noting that "cases involving even short-term monitoring ... require particular attention" because the "Government can store such records and efficiently mine them for information years into the future .... GPS monitoring is cheap ... proceeds surreptitiously, [and] it evades the ordinary checks that constrain abusive law enforcement practices: 'limited police resources and community hostility.'" Id. at *11. Justice Sotomayor expressed concerns that the Government's use of such technology might chill "associational and expressive freedoms," and that it may be inappropriate to entrust "to the Executive, in the absence of any oversight from a coordinate branch, a tool so amenable to misuse." Id. at *11-12. Finally, Justice Sotomayor addressed the most pressing issue threatening Fourth Amendment protections: the third party doctrine, which states that "an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties." Id. at *13. Justice Sotomayor noted that "[t]his approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks." Id.
EPIC has a particular interest in the impact of new surveillance technologies that have the capacity to enable warrantless, pervasive mass surveillance of the public by law enforcement agents. Such techniques offend the right of individuals to operate vehicles on public roads while maintaining privacy and their right to be free of unreasonable searches. EPIC has routinely urged regulators and courts to take meaningful steps towards protecting the privacy interests of motorists.
In Commonwealth v. Connolly, 454 Mass. 808 (2009), EPIC filed a "Friend of the Court" brief, arguing that the proliferation of police tracking devices "creates a large, and largely unregulated, repository containing detailed travel profiles of American citizens." EPIC warned that "law enforcement access to such information raises the specter of mass, pervasive surveillance without any predicate act that would justify this activity."
EPIC also filed comments with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, August 13, 2004, Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18029, supporting strong privacy safeguards for automobile Event Data Recorders (EDRs), including a clear consumer right to control the collection and dissemination of their driving data.
- Written Opinion - January 23, 2012
- Oral Argument Audio
- Oral Argument Transcript
- Government's Reply Brief
- EPIC "Friend of the Court" Brief
- ACLU "Friend of the Court" Brief
- Cato Institute "Friend of the Court" Brief
- Center for Democracy and Technology / Electronic Frontier Foundation "Friend of the Court" Brief
- Council on American-Islamic Relations "Friend of the Court" Brief
- Fourth Amendment Historians "Friend of the Court" Brief
- Gun Owners of America "Friend of the Court" Brief
- National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers "Friend of the Court" Brief
- Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association "Friend of the Court" Brief
- Rutherford Institute and National Motorists Association "Friend of the Court" Brief
- The Constitution Project "Friend of the Court" Brief
- Yale Law School Information Society Scholars "Friend of the Court" Brief
- Government's Supreme Court Brief
- Jones' Supreme Court Brief
- U.S. v. Jones Docket
- Grant of Certiorari (PDF)
District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals
- Denial of a Rehearing En Banc for Defendant Jones: US v. Jones, 625 F.3d 766 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
- Opinion Below: US v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Supreme Court Precedent
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2000)
- United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984)
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Other Relevant Cases
- State v. Zahn, 2012 S.D. 19, ___ N.W.2d ____ (2012).
- United States v. Hernandez, 647 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2011)
- United States v. Cuevas-Perez, 640 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2011)
- United States v. Pineda-Moreno (PDF), 591 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2010)
- United States v. Pineda-Moreno, 617 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2010) (denial of reh’g en banc) (Kozinski, J., dissenting)
- United States v. Marquez, 605 F.3d 604 (8th Cir. 2010)
- United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert. granted, United States v. Jones, 2011 WL 1456728 (June 27, 2011).
- United States v. Jones, 625 F.3d 766 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
- United States v. Smith, 387 F. App’x 918 (11th Cir. 2010)
- Unites States v. Garcia, 474 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2007)
- United States v. McIver, 186 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 1999)
Law Review Articles and Books
- Orin Kerr, The Mosaic Theory of the Fourth Amendment, 110 Mich. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2012).
- Shaun B. Spencer, GPS Monitoring Device Leads the Supreme Court to a Crossroads in Privacy Law, 46 New Eng. L. Rev. On Remand 45 (2012).
- Lenese Herbert, Challenging the (Un)Constitutionality of Governmental GPS Surveillance, A.B.A. Criminal Justice, Volume 26, No. 2 (Summer 2011).
- The Constitution Project, Liberty and Security Committee Statement on Location Tracking (Sept. 12, 2011).
- Alison M. Smith, Law Enforcement Use of Global Positioning (GPS) Devices to Monitor Motor Vehicles: Fourth Amendment Considerations, Congressional Research Service (Feb. 28, 2011).
- Caitlin Emmett, United States v. Pineda-Moreno, Tracking Down Individuals' Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in the Information Age, 41 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. (2011).
- Kaitlyn A. Kerrane, Keeping Up With Officer Jones: A Comprehensive Look at the Fourth Amendment and GPS Surveillance, 79 Fordham L. Rev. 1695 (2011).
- M. Iqbal & S. Lim, Privacy Implications of Automated GPS Tracking and Profiling, IEEE Technology & Soc'y Magazine (2010).
- Bennett L. Gershman, Privacy Revisited - GPS Tracking as Search and Seizure, 30 Pace L. Rev. 927 (2010).
- Orin S. Kerr, Fourth Amendment Seizures of Computer Data, 119 Yale L.J. 700, 714-15 (2010).
- Adam Koppel, Warranting a Warrant: Fourth Amendment Concerns Raised by Law Enforcement's Warrantless Use of GPS and Cellular Phone Tracking, 64 U. Miami L. Rev. 1061 (2010).
- Jack M. Balkin, The Constitution in the National Surveillance State, 93 Minn. L. Rev. 1 (2008).
- R. McDonald Hutchins, Tied Up in Knotts? GPS Technology and the Fourth Amendment, 55 UCLA L. Rev. 409 (2007).
- Christopher Slobogin, PRIVACY AT RISK: THE NEW GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, University of Chicago Press, Fall 2007
- Jerry Kang & Dana Cuff, Pervasive Computing: Embedding the Public Sphere, 62 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 93 (2005).
- Julie E. Cohen, Examined Lives: Information Privacy and the Subject as Object, .52 Stan. L. Rev. 1373 (2000).
- Helen Nissenbaum, Protecting Privacy in an Information Age: The Problem of Privacy in Public, 17 Law and Philosophy 559 (1998).
- EPIC: Locational Privacy
- EPIC: In re Historical Cell-Site Location Information (5th Cir)
- EPIC: State v. Earls
- Supreme Court Ruling Prompts FBI to Turn Off 3,000 Tracking Devices, Ariane de Vogue, ABC News, Mar. 7, 2012
- After High Court Ruling, Advocates Question Rules on Police Searches Using GPS, Robert Samuel, Fox News, Feb. 1, 2012
- Big Brother Buys a GPS, Pamela S. Karlan, Boston Review, January 2012
- Supreme Court to Police: Get Warrants for GPS Tracking, Richard Moore, The Lakeland Times, Jan. 31, 2012
- In the GPS Case, Issues of Privacy and Technology, Barry Friedman, The New York Times, Jan. 28, 2012
- Did the Supreme Court Secure Our Right of Privacy in Its Recent Ruling? Editorial, Beaufort Observer, Jan. 27. 2012
- Supreme Court Gets It Right, Editorial, Times Herald, Jan. 27, 2012
- Can the Police Keep Up With Jones?, Lior J. Strahilevitz, Chicago Tribune, Jan. 27, 2012
- Somebody is Watching You, Editorial, Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 26, 2012
- Why the Supreme Court GPS Decision Won't Stop Warrantless Digital Surveillance, John Villasenor, Scientific American, Jan. 25, 2012
- How GPS Tracking Threatens Privacy, Jacob Sullum, Reason, Jan. 25, 2012
- Navigating the Supreme Court's GPS Ruling, Editorial, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 25, 2012
- Big Brother on Your Bumper, Editorial, The Baltimore Sun, Jan. 25, 2012
- The Supreme Court Left Too Much Unresolved with Its GPS Ruling, Editorial, The Washington Post, Jan. 25, 2012
- GPS and the Right to Privacy, Editorial, The New York Times, Jan. 25, 2012
- Hail Samuel Alito, Privacy Champion Extraordinaire!, Jeffrey Rosen, The New Republic, Jan. 24, 2012
- Supreme Court Says Police Need Warrant for GPS Tracking, David Savage, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 24, 2012
- US v. Jones: The Battle for the Fourth Amendment Continues, John W. Whitehead, Huffington Post, Jan. 24, 2012
- Justice Scalia Turns to 18th-Century Wisdom for Guidance on GPS, Garrett Epps, The Atlantic, Jan. 24, 2012
- Why the Jones Supreme Court Ruling on GPS Tracking is Worse Than It Sounds, Rebecca Rosen, The Atlantic, Jan. 23, 2012
- GPS Tracking Requires Warrant, Supreme Court Rules, Ariane de Vouge, ABC News, Jan. 23, 2012
- Police Need Warrant for GPS Tracking, James Vicini, Reuters, Jan. 23, 2012
- Police Use of GPS Devices to Track People Limited by U.S. Supreme Court, Greg Stohr, Bloomberg, Jan. 23, 2012
- Supreme Court: Warrants Needed in GPS Tracking, Robert Barnes, The Washington Post, Jan. 23, 2012
- Supreme Court Rules Warrant Needed for GPS Tracking, Joan Biskupic, USA Today, Jan. 23, 2012
- A Supreme Court Justice's Radical Proposal Regarding The Privacy of Your Google Searches, Facebook Account & Phone Records, Kashmir Hill, Forbes, Jan. 23, 2012
- Supreme Court Rules GPS Tracking of Vehicle Constitutes Search, Jaclyn Belczyk, Jurist, Jan. 23, 2012
- GPS Tracking Needs Warrant, Justices Say, Barbara Leonard, Courthouse News Service, Jan. 23, 2012
- Justices Say GPS Tracker Violated Privacy Rights, Adam Liptak, The New York Times, January 23, 2012
- Supreme Court Expresses Doubts About Police GPS Use, Joan Biskupic, USA Today, November 8, 2011
- Court Casts a Wary Eye on Tracking by GPS, Adam Liptak, The New York Times, November 8, 2011
- Supreme Court Justices Concerned About Pervasive, Technology-Enabled Government Surveillance, Kashmir Hill, Forbes, November 8, 2011
- Supreme Court Questions Warrantless GPS Tracking, The Associated Press, November 8, 2011
- Exhibit A in the 4th Amendment Privacy Cases: Technology, Carol J. Williams, L.A. Times, November 7, 2011
- How GPS Tracking Threatens Our Privacy, Catherine Crump, CNN Opinion, November 7, 2011
- Police GPS Device Use Triggers Privacy Clash at U.S. High Court, Greg Stohr, Bloomberg, November 7, 2011
- Supreme Court to Hear GPS Surveillance Case, Emily Babay, The Washington Examiner, November 6, 2011
- The Court's GPS Test, Editorial, The New York Times, November 5, 2011
- Police GPS Tracking Case to be Heard by Supreme Court, James Vicini, Reuters, November 4, 2011
- Keeping Up with the Joneses—How Far Does the ‘Reasonable Expectation of Privacy’ Go?, Erwin Chemerinsky, ABA Journal, November 01, 2011
- Protect Our Right to Anonymity, Jeffrey Rosen, The New York Times, Opinion, September 12, 2011
- Court Case Asks if ‘Big Brother’ Is Spelled GPS, Adam Liptak, The New York Times, September 10, 2011
- Another view: Steer clear of cars that spy, Marc Rotenberg, USA Today, August 18, 2011
- Should the Government Need a Search Warrant to Track Your Car with GPS?, Adam Cohen, TIME, July 5, 2011.
- Supreme Court to weigh in on warrantless GPS tracking, Jaikumar Vijayan, Computer World, June 28, 2011
- Supreme Court to decide whether police can attach GPS device to car without a warrant, David Savage, Los Angeles Times, June 27, 2011
- Supreme Court to decide police GPS tracking case, James Vicini, Reuters, June 27, 2011
- Supreme Court to review warrantless GPS tracking, Yahoo! News, June 27, 2011
- Supreme Court will consider if authorities need warrants for GPS tracking, The Washington Post, June 27, 2011
- Supreme Court will set rules for warrantless GPS tracking, Declan McCullagh, CNET News, June 27, 2011
- GPS Device Used by Police Will Get U.S. Supreme Court Scrutiny, SF Gate: Business Report, June 26, 2011
- Battle Brews Over FBI's Warrantless GPS Tracking, Kim Zetter, Wired, May 9, 2011
- San Jose Arab American Sues FBI Over GPS, B. Egelko, S.F. Chronicle, Mar. 3, 2011
- Judges Divided Over Rising GPS Surveillance, Charlie Savage, The New York Times, August 13, 2010
- How Many GPS Trackers Is the FBI Actually Using? Kashmir Hill, Forbes, Mar. 27, 2012
- Jones, the Automobile Exception, and the Warrant Requirement, Orin Kerr, Volokh Conspiracy, Feb. 2, 2012
- Recent opinions: In Plain English, Amy Howe, SCOTUSblog, Feb. 1, 2012
- Why United States v. Jones is Subject to So Many Different Interpretations, Orin Kerr, Volokh Conspiracy, Feb. 1, 2012
- Privacy Concerns and Technological Change: the Legislative Option, Chris Wolf and Jules Polonetsky, The Hill - Congress Blog, Jan. 31, 2012
- Why Jones is Still Less of a Pro-Privacy Decision Than Most Thought, Tom Goldstein, SCOTUSblog Jan. 31, 2012
- One Small Step for Privacy..., Susan Landau, Huffington Post, Jan. 26, 2012
- Legality of Mobile Phone Tracking Still Unclear Despite Supreme Court GPS Decision, David Kravets, Wired - Threat Level, Jan. 25, 2012
- Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on Technology and the Fourth Amendment, Paul Larkin, The Foundry Blog - Heritage Foundation, Jan. 25, 2012
- Scalia's Votes in Bond and Jones, Orin Kerr, The Volokh Conspiracy, Jan. 25, 2012
- Why Scalia is Right in Jones: Magic Places and One-Way Ratchets, Derek Bambauer, Concurring Opinions, Jan. 24, 2012
- Three Thoughts on US v. Jones, Margot Kaminski, Concurring Opinions, Jan. 24, 2012
- Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Gerard Magliocca, Concurring Opinions, Jan. 24, 2012
- Privacy in a Public Space? Piece It All Together and You Get 5, Priscilla Smith, Nabiha Syed & Albert Wong, Information Society Project at Yale Law School, Concurring Opinions, Jan. 24, 2012
- Supreme Court Holds Warrantless GPS Tracking Unconstitutional, Timothy B. Lee, ArsTechnica, Jan. 23, 2012
- Supreme Court Rules Warrantless GPS Tracking is Unconstitutional, Brendan Sasso, Hillicon Valley, Jan. 23, 2012
- Supreme Court Rules Police Need Warrant for GPS Tracking, Eyder Peralta, NPR - The Two Way, Jan. 23, 2012
- Supreme Court: GPS Location Tracking Qualifies as Search, Tony Romm, Politico, Jan. 23, 2012
- U.S. v. Jones: A Big Privacy Win, Jim Harper, Cato@Liberty, Jan. 23, 2012
- Warrantless GPS Tracking Unconstitutional, Supreme Court Rules, Mike Sacks, Huffington Post, Jan. 23, 2012
- Supreme Court Rejects Willy-Nilly GPS Tracking, David Kravetz, Wired - Threat Level, Jan. 23, 2012
- SCOTUS Rejects Warrantless GPS Tracking, Nicole Flatow, ACS Blog, Jan. 23, 2012
- Herding Katz, Mike Dorf, Dorf on Law, Jan. 23, 2012
- United States v. Jones is a Near-Optimal Result, Paul Ohm, Freedom to Tinker, Jan. 23, 2012
- Three Questions Raise by the Trespass Test in United States v. Jones, Orin Kerr, The Volokh Conspiracy, Jan. 23, 2012
- Opinion Recap: Tight Limit on Police GPS Use (FINAL UPDATE), Lyle Denniston, SCOTUSblog, Jan. 23, 2012
- U.S. v. Jones: The Court's Search for a Rationale, Jim Harper, Cato@Liberty, November 8, 2011
- Supreme Court Ponders Constitutionality of 24/7 GPS tracking, Timothy B. Lee, ArsTechnica - Law & Disorder, November 8, 2011
- Argument Recap: For GPS, Get a Warrant, Lyle Denniston, SCOTUSblog, November 8, 2011
- Busted! Two New Fed GPS Trackers Found on SUV, Kim Zetter, Wired.com, November 8, 2011
- GPS Surveillance: A Crossroads for the Fourth Amendment, Daniel Solove, ACSblog, November 7, 2011
- Feds Seek Unfettered GPS Surveillance Power as Location-Tracking Flourishes, David Kravetz, Wired.com - Threat Level, November 7, 2011
- United States v. Jones: D.C. GPS Case to Test Fourth Amendment Rights, Arin Greenwood, Huffington Post, November 7, 2011
- This Week In Tech: Supreme Court to Weigh Warrantless GPS Tracking, Gautham Nagesh and Brendan Sasso, The Hill, Technology Blog, November 7, 2011
- Argument Preview: High Tech Policing, Lyle Denniston, SCOTUSblog, November 5, 2011
- Academic Roundup, Amanda Frost, SCOTUSblog, Oct 25, 2011
- Does Using a GPS Device to Track a Suspect Constitute a Fourth Amendment Search?, Orin Kerr, SCOTUSblog, Oct 21, 2011
- Bipartisan Coalition Opposes Warrantless Electronic Tracking by Government, Gautham Nagesh, The Hill Technology Blog, Oct 18, 2011
- U.S. v. Jones: Where Privacy, Technology and the Constitution Collide, Rev. John W. Whitehead, NJToday.net, October 12, 2011
- DC Man's Case Makes it to Supreme Court, Martin Austermuhle, DCist, October 2, 2011
- SCOTUS to Consider Major GPS Privacy Case, John Moe, American Public Media: Marketplace Tech Report, October 3, 2011
- Changes to OnStar’s Privacy Terms Rile Some Users, John R. Quain, The New York Times: Wheels, September 22, 2011
- The Government’s Brief in United States v. Jones and the Four Models of Fourth Amendment Protection, Orin Kerr, The Volokh Conspiracy, August 11, 2011
- Obama Administration Fights to Allow Warrantless GPS Tracking, Jason Mick, Daily Tech, June 28, 2011
- Is Warrantless GPS Tracking Constitutional?, Jennifer Valentino—DeVries, The Wall Street Journal: Digits, June 27, 2011
- Supreme Court Accepts Case Challenging GPS Surveillance Without a Warrant, Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal, June 27, 2011
- Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Key Warrantless GPS Tracking Case, Marcia Hofmann, Electronic Frontier Foundation, June 27, 2011
- Supreme Court Agrees to Review Case on GPS and the Fourth Amendment, Orin Kerr, The Volokh Conspiracy, June 27, 2011
- Warrantless GPS Tracking Case Heads to Supreme Court, Catherine Crump, ACLU Blog of Rights, June 27, 2011
- DOJ to Supreme Court: Approve warrantless GPS surveillance, Darlene Storm, ComputerWorld, April 20, 2011
Share this page:
EPIC relies on support from individual donors to pursue our work.
Subscribe to the EPIC Alert
The EPIC Alert is a biweekly newsletter highlighting emerging privacy issues.
Machines of Loving Grace by John Markoff