Antoine Jones

It’s the first Monday in October, and that means that the U.S. Supreme Court gets back to work hearing cases today. On its docket this term is a case involving a D.C. man, GPS surveillance and the question of how far is too far in tracking a suspect.

In 2004, Antoine Jones, a D.C. club owner, was part of a joint FBI/Metropolitan Police Department investigation into drug trafficking. As part of the investigation, police were given the green light to place a GPS tracker on Jones’ car within 10 days and inside city limits. The GPS tracker was placed outside of the city and the time-limit allowed by the warrant, but Jones was still arrested after he led police to a Maryland stash house in which they found cocaine, crack and $850,000 in cash. Jones was later convicted for conspiracy to distribute illegal drugs.

Jones appealed the conviction, saying that the use of GPS on his car violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. On August 6, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with him, overturning his conviction. Beyond the issue of the GPS being placed on Jones’ car outside of the scope of the warrant, the court found that “prolonged GPS monitoring reveals an intimate picture of the subject’s life that he expects no one to have — short perhaps of his spouse.”

In April, the Department of Justice asked the Supreme Court to review the matter, and on June 27, it did. According to a brief filed by the Department of Justice, it seeks to argue that since what Jones was doing was driving a car out in the open, the placement of a GPS device didn’t constitute a search or seizure, much less one that could be deemed unreasonable. In his own filing, Jones countered, adding that “warrantless government GPS surveillance is a grave and novel threat to the personal privacy and security of individuals.”

The Supreme Court will hear the case on November 8, when it will have to decide whether warrantless use of a GPS tracked violates the Fourth Amendment and if the government violated Jones’ rights under the amendment.