In Carroll v. United States (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/267/132/) the Supreme Court held
that vehicles were held to a lesser standard of Fourth Amendment protection stating that a warrant wasn’t
required. Then, in Katz v. United States, (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/35) the Court established the
right to privacy as a defense against warrantless searches. Fast forward 45 years after the Katz decision
and we have the United States v. Jones case (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/10-1259). This case was an
appeal from the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals that went on to the Supreme Court, on the
issue of whether a warrant is needed to attach a GPS tracking device to a vehicle.
Please review the summaries of these three cases by clicking on the name of the case above.
Is it a reasonable progression based on the Court’s analysis to require a warrant before the government
places a GPS on a vehicle? Why or why not?
Based on the Court’s interpretation of the right to privacy under the 4th Amendment, should a warrant be
required to place a GPS? Why or why not?
Assuming that a warrant is required, what are the exceptions to this requirement that might apply when the
government legally places a GPS on a vehicle?
Sample Solution
