There’s little doubt that Antoine Jones, a Washington nightclub owner was actually trafficking cocaine when a joint FBI-Washington D.C. police team attached a GPS tracking device to his Jeep. They knew that he had stashed his ill-gotten goods somewhere other than his home. Sure enough, after following Jones to another home, cops discovered nearly 100 kilograms of the illegal narcotic, along with about $850,000 in cash. Jones was later convicted of cocaine trafficking and sentenced to no less than life in prison.

Strangely, a search warrant to attach the device had been granted by a Judge, but the device was not attached within the 10 days authorized and the car traveled outside of Washington DC, which was beyond the scope of the warrant. Jones was then monitored for nearly a month until he was finally arrested at a Maryland drug den.

Few will likely cheer a convicted drug dealer’s High Court victory, especially in light of its being based in a “technicality”, but all Americans should applaud this decision. GPS monitoring has become a critically important law enforcement tool in dealing with everyone from child molesters to drug traffickers. Countless violent criminals have been arrested, tried and convicted with evidence gained from the high-tech device. But the message sent by the Supreme Court is clear: When it comes to automobiles, attaching a GPS device is a constitutional search and seizure. The Court ruled: “The government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information,” “We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a ’search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.”

4th Amendment, US Constitution“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”

Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking for the five justice majority, wrote that a person’s property is “legally sacred, and the government had to justify placing a GPS device on the vehicle.” Scalia further explained electronic age does not change a centuries-old concept. That begs the question: How far reaching will the impact of this decision be?

(more…)

How was I to know [he] was with the Russians, too?

Justice Stevens’ opinion leaves him on the wrong side of history regarding the importance of the 2nd Amendment.

Part III deals with Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion in McDonald v. Chicago, Justice Scalia’s responsive concurrence, and a general summary of the issues.  Part I dealt with the plurality decision written by Justice Alito, the dissenting opinion of Justice Breyer, and is relevant to a discussion on the doctrine of incorporation.  Part II dealt with Justice Thomas’ brilliant concurrence, rejecting the doctrine of incorporation for the “privileges and immunities” clause of the 14th Amendment.

You may recall that we addressed the legacy of Justice Stevens’ in a previous article:

Justice Stevens, a member of the Court since 1975, displayed distrust for freedom and voted on the wrong side of many significant constitutional issues.  He willingly eroded individual rights in favor of intrusive government policy.  Stevens’ uneasiness with freedom and individual rights led him to substitute textually sound, constitutional arguments with “intangibles” and fearful hypotheticals involving individuals abusing their rights at the expense of others.

Sure enough, he is up to the same shenanigans in what will be one of his last opinions.  To our benefit, Justice Scalia makes sure that Stevens leaves SCOTUS with a swift kick in the pants. (more…)