565 U.S. 400 (2012) · 2012
United States v. Jones
Fourth AmendmentPrivacySearch and SeizureSurveillanceTechnologyLandmark
Summary
United States v. Jones held that attaching a GPS tracker to a vehicle and using it to monitor the vehicle’s movements is a Fourth Amendment search. The decision revived property-based Fourth Amendment reasoning while also setting up later debates over long-term digital tracking and location privacy.
Background & Context
Investigators obtained a warrant authorizing GPS tracking in the District of Columbia, but installed the device in Maryland after the warrant period had expired. In the Supreme Court, the government argued that no warrant was needed because GPS tracking on public roads was not a search.
The Question Before the Court
Does installing a GPS tracker on a vehicle and using it to monitor the vehicle's movements on public roads constitute a Fourth Amendment search?
Petitioner
United States
Party asking the Court to review or reverse
Argued
- The United States argued that Jones had no reasonable expectation of privacy in movements visible on public roads.
- The government argued that the GPS device did not reveal information that officers could not have observed by following the vehicle.
Respondent
Antoine Jones
Party defending the judgment below
Argued
- Jones argued that attaching the device to his vehicle was a physical intrusion on property for the purpose of obtaining information.
- He argued that sustained GPS monitoring revealed a detailed picture of private life that ordinary visual surveillance could not match.
The Holding
The government's physical installation of a GPS device on Jones's vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements, constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment.
The Court
How the justices lined up in this decision.
9-0
Vote
Joined decision
9 justicesAM
Anthony Kennedy
Majority
AS
Antonin Scalia
Majority
Justice Thomas
Majority
CT
Clarence Thomas
Majority
Justice Kagan
Majority
Chief Justice Roberts
Chief Justice
JG
John Jr.
Majority
Justice Sotomayor
Majority
SS
Sonia Sotomayor
Majority
Concurred
5 justices
Justice Alito
Concurred in judgment
EK
Elena Kagan
Concurred
RB
Ruth Ginsburg
Concurred
SA
Samuel Jr.
Concurred
SG
Stephen Breyer
Concurred
What this means for you
Jones became a major surveillance case. It limited warrantless physical tracking and opened the door for later Fourth Amendment arguments about long-term digital location monitoring, while leaving many questions about non-trespass digital tracking unresolved.
Key Takeaways
- A vehicle is an effect protected by the Fourth Amendment.
- Physically attaching a GPS device to gather information was a search.
- The Court treated Katz's reasonable-expectation test as added to, not substituted for, the older property-based rule.
- The judgment was 9-0, but only five justices joined the majority's trespass rationale.
- The case left broader questions about warrantless digital location tracking for later decisions.
Decision
9-0 majority opinion
- Citation
- 565 U.S. 400 (2012)
- Vote
- 9-0
- Decision type
- Majority opinion
- Argued
- November 8, 2011
- Decided
- January 23, 2012
- Term
- 2011
- Opinion author
- Antonin Scalia
The judgment was unanimous, but the reasoning split. Justice Scalia wrote for five justices on a physical-trespass theory. Justice Sotomayor joined that opinion and also concurred. Justice Alito concurred in the judgment, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, focusing on reasonable expectations of privacy in long-term monitoring.