Www.floridasupremecourt.org



FOURTH AMENDMENT UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

The GPS Search Case

State of Florida v. Justin Barber

Sunshine High School has a NO DRUG USE policy that all students agree to follow. Despite this policy, Sunshine High School continues to have a drug problem among its students. Drug use is not only illegal, it causes discipline problems.

Justin Barber is an 18 year old senior at Florida High School. He is well liked, has many friends, and is smart and hardworking. Justin dreams of going to medical school. Justin has a problem; his family doesn’t have the money to send him to college. For this reason, Justin has been selling drugs to earn money to pay for school.

During a recent drug bust at the school, the police were given a tip that Justin was the dealer supplying drugs to students. With this suspicion, the police began to monitor Justin’s activities hoping to catch him. The police decided to follow Justin for a few days. However, in order to improve their efficiency in surveillance, the police attached a GPS tracking device to Justin’s car to help monitor his movements. The GPS pinpointed the car's location every 10 seconds, 24 hours a day, for 28 days. The police only used the information gathered from the car as it traveled on public roads. This information ultimately led to Justin’s arrest and the seizure of marijuana and cocaine and $50,000 stashed at his house — evidence used against him.

TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS & RULING:

At trial, Justin Barber was found guilty of selling drugs and sentenced to prison. He did not graduate high school with his senior class.

Justin and his attorney filed an appeal to the District Court of Appeal arguing that attaching a GPS device to his car without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure and his right to privacy. The State of Florida argued that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply in this case because the GPS device was used as a surveillance activity by police conducted on public roads where there is no expectation of privacy.

THE APPEAL:

The appellate court disagreed with the trial court’s decision and set the conviction aside because the police had failed to get a search warrant before putting the GPS device on Justin’s car.

The State of Florida is appealing the DCA decision to the Florida Supreme Court who is now ready to hear oral arguments in this case.

Constitutional Question the Justices Must Answer:

Did the police violate the Fourth Amendment when they installed a GPS tracking device without a search warrant on Justin’s car to monitor his movements on public streets?

Questions to think about before deciding the case:

1. How much privacy is expected in this situation?

2. Is GPS monitoring considered a surveillance activity by the police?

3. Is mere suspicion of criminal activity enough needed by law enforcement to install this type of monitoring device without a person knowing about it?

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

– The GPS Search Case –

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. MY NAME IS __________ AND I REPRESENT THE PETITIONER, THE STATE OF FLORIDA, WHO ARGUES THAT THE GPS SURVEILLANCE DEVICE DID NOT VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.

STATE’s Arguments (for GPS monitoring) include:

1. Courts have ruled in the past that police are allowed to conduct surveillance without a search warrant. Surveillance using a GPS is no different.

2. Using a GPS device is not a search. The police did not go inside anything or look through Mr. Barber’s personal property.

3. Mr. Barber’s privacy was not violated because the police were only monitoring

him while he traveled on public road ways.

4. The police need the ability to use warrantless tracking to investigate leads

and tips on drug trafficking, terrorism and other crimes.

5. With today’s technology like video cameras, smart phones to FaceBook,

people don’t value their privacy like people did years ago. We don’t

have the same expectation of privacy as our founding fathers did.

The interpretation of the Fourth Amendment must reflect this change.

6. With advances in technology today, the police should be able to use these advances to their advantage to combat crime.

7. The police need the ability to combat drugs on our streets and in our schools.

Try to think of other arguments for the use of the GPS device. Write these arguments on the note pad at your seat.

– The GPS Search Case –

Supreme Court Justices

Questions for the Petitioner – The State of Florida (for the use of the GPS Surveillance device)

Directions: Justices ask questions to the attorneys to understand the arguments and to clarify any legal interpretations. Your job is to listen to both sets of arguments, ask questions for understanding, interpret the law presented and make a decision.

Justices may take notes, ask their own questions, use the questions below or reword them. Questions must be relevant to the case and to the attorney’s position that is arguing.

1. So you are saying that the police can put a GPS device on MY car, a Florida Supreme Court justice’s car, without probable cause and a search warrant?

2. How much surveillance is OK without a warrant? A few hours? A few days?

3. Don’t you think that 24-hour monitoring for a month is too much of an intrusion into someone’s private life?

4. If you win this case, are you saying the police can monitor the movements of everyone in the United States without a warrant and call it surveillance?

5. Don’t you think it is “creepy” and “un-American” that the police are allowed to secretly track someone and not be limited in any way?

6. Shouldn’t we interpret Mr. Barber’s car as his personal “effects” as the Fourth Amendment lists?

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

– The GPS Search Case –

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. MY NAME IS __________ AND I REPRESENT THE RESPONDENT, THE JUSTIN BARBER, WHO ARGUES THAT THE GPS SURVEILLANCE DEVICE DID VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

BARBER’S Arguments (against the GPS surveillance) include:

1. The use of a GPS device on a car is unreasonable because it is providing private details of a person’s life. The police need a warrant BEFORE installing the GPS device.

2. Because the police officers trespassed on Mr. Barber’s property to install the GPS, the information seized from the GPS is unconstitutional.

3. Our expectation of privacy DOES include our movements in our car. It doesn’t

matter if we travel on the public road ways or not; people have an expectation of privacy in their car because the car is within their control.

4. Because technology is far more advanced today than our founding fathers ever envisioned, the boundaries of privacy need to include the use of tracking devices on cars without our knowledge.

5. Allowing the government to secretly install monitoring devices on cars without probable cause and without the review of the judicial branch is scary and unconstitutional.

Try to think of other arguments against the use of the GPS surveillance device. Write these arguments on the note pad at your seat.

– The GPS Search Case –

Supreme Court Justices

Questions for the Respondent – Justin Barber (against the GPS Surveillance monitoring)

Directions: Justices ask questions to the attorneys to understand the arguments and to clarify any legal interpretations. Your job is to listen to both sets of arguments, ask questions for understanding, interpret the law presented and make a decision.

Justices may take notes, ask their own questions, use the questions below or reword them. Questions must be relevant to the case and to the attorney’s position that is arguing.

1. What’s the difference between using a GPS device on a car and using police officers to follow someone? The police have a job to do, right?

2. What is the difference between tracking movement using a GPS device and using surveillance cameras that are found today in stores and on streets? It feels like we are now under constant surveillance no matter where we go.

3. Where in the Fourth Amendment does it say that monitoring a car’s movement is protected? I thought it was just persons, houses, papers and effects?

4. Where is the invasion of privacy? Did the police go inside the car?

5. What is the search that took place in this case and what did they seize?

6. In your opinion, what should the police have done instead?

MARSHAL’S SCRIPT

(You must call Court to order in a very loud voice.)

All rise. (wait until everyone stands before continuing)

Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye!

The Supreme Court of Florida is now in session.

All who have cause to plea, draw near, give attention, and you shall be heard.

God save these United States, this great State of Florida, and this honorable Court.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Florida Supreme Court.

Please be seated.

– The GPS Search Case –

CHIEF JUSTICE’S SCRIPT

1. The Court is ready to hear the case of State of Florida v. Justin Barber.

2. Are the attorneys ready to proceed?

(Wait for the attorneys to answer YES.)

3. Attorneys for the Petitioner may begin – 2 minutes each attorney.

(You now become a regular justice asking questions.

After both attorneys have their turn, move on to #4.)

___________

4. Attorneys for the Respondent may begin – 2 minutes each attorney.

(You now become a regular justice asking questions again.

After both attorneys have their turn, move on to #.5)

___________

5. Attorneys for the Petitioner may present rebuttal – 1 minute total.

(You now become a regular justice asking questions again.

After the petitioner’s attorney present their one minute rebuttal, move on to #6.)

___________

6. Attorneys, thank you for your arguments. The Court will announce its decision shortly.

CLERK SCRIPT

Directions: After the arguments, the Justices will vote on the case. Check the corresponding box for each justice’s vote, count the votes for the Petitioner and Respondent and complete the decision form below.

|Votes: |For the Petitioner: |For the Respondent: |

| | | |

|Chief Justice | | |

|Justice 2 | | |

|Justice 3 | | |

|Justice 4 | | |

|Justice 5 | | |

|Justice 6 | | |

|Justice 7 | | |

Decision Form:

(Directions – Stand up and READ in a very loud voice):

The Florida Supreme Court has reached a decision in this case. By a vote of _________ to __________ the Court rules in favor of the ___________________________. (Petitioner or Respondent)

Court Decisions

United States Supreme Court

United States v. Antoine Jones (January 23, 2012) USSC No. 10-1259

The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Government’s attachment of the GPS device to a vehicle and use that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

They concluded that the 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.

The Case:

SUSPECTED DRUG TRAFFICKER

The case began in 2005 when police officers went to a public parking lot in Maryland and secretly installed a GPS device on a Jeep Grand Cherokee used by a Washington, D.C. nightclub owner, Antoine Jones.

Jones was suspected of drug trafficking and the police tracked his movements for a month. The resulting evidence played a key role in his conviction for conspiring to distribute cocaine.

The appeals court had thrown out Jones's conviction and his life-in-prison sentence, and ruled prolonged electronic monitoring of the vehicle amounted to a search.

All nine justices agreed in upholding the appeals court decision, but at least four justices would have gone even further in finding fault not only with the attachment of the device, but also with the lengthy monitoring.

LONG-TERM MONITORING

Justice Samuel Alito wrote a separate opinion that Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined. He wrote that he would have decided the case by holding that Jones's reasonable privacy expectations were violated by long-term monitoring of his vehicle's movements.

Alito said in recent years many new devices have emerged that track a person's movements, including video surveillance in some cities, automatic toll collection systems on roads, devices on cars that disclose their location, cell phones and other wireless devices.

"The availability and use of these and other new devices will continue to shape the average person's expectations about the privacy of his or her daily movements," he wrote.



-----------------------

The right of the people to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers, and effects

against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,

supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and persons or things to be seized.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download