The second trial, found Jones guilty of the charges from a hung jury that led the hearing of the second trial case. The decision from the second trial case was rejected and later reversed, which stated that admission of evidence used by the second trial court was obtained by warrantless use of a GPS device, and, therefore, was violating the fourth amendment to United States constitution (Clancy, 15). Ideally, for a court to make a justifiable ruling, a number of statement issues need consideration. In the United States versus Jones case, the D. C.
Circuit Court had various aspects to consider in making its decision. First, was to determine whether the attachment of the GPS device on the car Jones drove and use it to monitor the movements on public areas constituted a search or seizure as indicated in the fourth amendment of the constitution. Secondly, was to determine whether the warrant issued at the onset of the investigations was followed as per the requirements in it. Based on the above aspects, the D. C. Circuit Court would then make a decision and later a ruling.
Based on the issues presented above, it was the holding of the court that indeed, it was affirmed that there had been a breach in the fourth amendment in the constitution. In making such a holding, the court ruled that the placement of the government’s GPs device on Jones’ car constituted to elements of ‘search, ’ which ideally contradict the requirements of the fourth amendment of the constitution (Clancy, 26). Considering the viewpoint of the court on the holding of the case, the court used a particular rationale, in ensuring that the ruling made was legally applicable and that such reasoning was justifiable and accurate.
The rational of the reasoning was that the placing of a GPS device on Jones’ car by the government, which is considered a personal effect, would be clearly classified as a search under the fourth amendment of the constitution. Such a consideration of the court was made based on the aspect that since its history, the fourth amendment was concerned with the government’s trespass on private effects of its citizens, mainly for the purposes of acquiring information or certain assets (Taslitz 116).
The placing of the GPS on Jones’ car violated the fourth amendment of US constitution as such was done without a warrant considering that the warrant previously issued had a ten-day deadline that was not adhered to. Additionally, the use of a GPS device was only warranted within D. C.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples