CMRJ601 Brief 1 United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) Olufemi Ogundare April,20,2017 Name and Citation of Case: United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) Decision: The United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit decided to affirm the conviction due to the admission of the evidence acquired for Jones narcotic trafficking under 21 U. S. C. §§841 and 846. How the Vote Decided: Majority Opinion, Concurring, Dissenting: The majority opinion was written by Justice Scalia and joined by Thomas Sotomayor (Liptak, 2010). The concurring opinion consisted of Justice Sotomayor and joined by Justice Alito, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan. There appeared to be no dissenting opinion in the case provided. Fact Summary and Legal History: The government installed a Global Positioning System (GPS) on Jones's vehicle. In 2004, Jones was suspected of trafficking narcotics a violation under 21 U. S. C. §§841 and 846. It tracked the movement of the vehicle for 28 days within the District of Columbia and suppressed data acquired when parked with his home premises. Jones was convicted. Antonio Jones filed a motion against the search claiming for suppression of the evidence acquired through the GPS. Jones claims that there was a violation of privacy rights. CMRJ601 Brief 1 United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) Olufemi Ogundare April,20,2017 Major Question (s) or Issue(s) Presented by the Case: According to Justice Scalia's written opinion in United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012): Does the opinion of the court on secretly installing a GPS on Jones's vehicle leading to his conviction, violate Jones's rights to privacy according to the fourth amendment? Summary of the Court's reasoning in Reaching the Answer: The court concluded, as written by Justice Scalia (2012), an individual traveling in an automobile in public such as streets had hardly any reasonable expectations, of his privacy in his movements around the region, United States v. Knotts, 460 U. S. 276, 281 (1983). Thus, in this case, the court concluded that there was no search as Jones was unaware of any reasonable privacy in the location of the Jeep on Public Roads, and everyone would see that. The government also argued out that in the event that there was a search in the installation of the device on Jones's Jeep, then the search ought to have been lawful in regards to the fourth amendment as there was a reasonable suspicion of the officers. Indeed, it had probable cause to deem Jones as a cocaine trafficker. The court also concluded in their reasoning that the fourth amendment never applied in Jones's case as, one, the property was registered in his wife's name and secondly the registration of the vehicle hardly impacted Jones's capability to make an objection to the fourth amendment. Summary of Significant Concurring and Dissenting Opinions: Justice Sotomayor concurring opinion was based on the reasoning that physical intrusion by the government would only be valid in an enclosed or protected area. Thus, the CMRJ601 Brief 1 United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) Olufemi Ogundare April,20,2017 government obtaining data from the GPS on the streets never violated the fourth amendment. Additionally, the government installed the GPS without Jones consent of privacy infringement. Moreover, the usage of the device was grounded on a reasonable and legal basis of surveillance. There was reasonable suspicion of narcotics trafficking. Thus, the fourth amendment allowed invading of privacy, for instance, Silverman v. the United States, 365 U. S. 505, 511– 512 (1961). He claims that the fourth amendment not only covers trespass on property intrusion but also where the society views the search as reasonable. Justice Alito concurring opinion was also based on the fourth amendment explanations on the violation of the seizure and unreasonable searches in regards to the 21st century. The search involved a GPS surveillance technique. However, he concurred with the court on the basis that the search was reasonable and within the fourth amendment laws as it never caused disruption of the chattel. Additionally, he argues out that there was not a seizure in the case basing on United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U. S. 109, 113 (1984) rulings which state that seizure only occurs through reasonable interference with one's possessory interests in the property. This case had none. Moreover, the search was reasonable as per the common law which stated that intrusion of private property would only be actionable if it were unauthorized but not in open fields such as streets. Private property according to the fourth amendment only falls under the "curtilage" of the home as seen in the Oliver v. the United States, 466 U. S. 170 (1984) ruling. Nevertheless, despite Justice Alito concurring with the court rulings, he dissents that it does not clearly explain or argue out the grounds for the search basing on the fact that the CMRJ601 Brief 1 United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) Olufemi Ogundare April,20,2017 GPS device is a modern technological mode of surveillance while the court used an 18thcentury reasoning (Liptak, 2010). Significance: What Does This Opinion Mean for the Law? The court opinion vividly brought out the lawfulness or legality of the notion of seizure and search. It set out that a search outside the home "curtilage" never constituted to physical intrusion and especially if it barely caused an interference with the involved property, such as a vehicle in this case. Additionally, it affirms that the fourth amendment would be deemed insignificant in the event the involved property belonged somebody else other than the respondent (Clancy, 2010). Moreover, it brings out that a search would only be reasonable in the event the suspect or respondent was aware of privacy violation. Personal Interpretation and Substance? In my opinion, it would be reasonable and valid to go by the court's decisions on the affirmation of the case. After all, wasn't the search successful? They suspected that Jones was trafficking narcotics which they found it was true. Again, there was no violation of the fourth amendment basing on the fact that the search was conducted outside Jones's home beside the fact that Jones was hardly aware of the search. The search never interfered with the functionality of the vehicle. Additionally, the government suppressed the data acquired when the vehicle was in his home compound. It is true that there was police violation of the warrant rules, whereby, there was the untimely installation of the device against the warranted ten days. Besides, they installed it outside the District of Columbia which is also against the terms of the warrant. Nevertheless, the court justifies and balances this basing on the fact that the fourth amendment barely covers these CMRJ601 Brief 1 United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) Olufemi Ogundare April,20,2017 constraints. Therefore, breaching such restrictions would not demand evidence suppression when such a device is used in the search. For instance, this was seen to apply in the United States v. Burke, 517 F. 2d 377, 386–387 (CA2 1975) ruling. CMRJ601 Brief 1 United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) Olufemi Ogundare April,20,2017 References Clancy, T. K. (2010). The Irrelevancy of the Fourth Amendment in the Roberts Court. Chi.-Kent L. Rev., 85, 191. Liptak, A. (2010). Justices, 5-4, reject corporate spending limit. New York Times, 21. Oliver v. United States, 466 U. S. 170 (1984) Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 511– 512 (1961). United States v. Burke, 517 F. 2d 377, 386–387 (CA2 1975) United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U. S. 109, 113 (1984) United States v. Knotts, 460 U. S. 276, 281 (1983). United States v. Maynard, 615 F. 3d 544 (2010) United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U. S. 109, 113 (1984) Quality No of Response Poor/Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Good Excellent Respons e Content Zero 20 points out of 30 points out of 50: The 40 points out of 50 points: The (worth a points: Stude 50: The essay essay illustrates a 50: The essay essay illustrates maximu nt failed to illustrates poor rudimentary illustrates exemplary m of submit the understanding of understanding of the solid understanding 50% of final paper. the relevant relevant material by understanding of the relevant the total material by failing mentioning but not full of the relevant material by points) to address or explaining the relevant material by thoroughly incorrectly content; identifying correctly and correctly addressing the some of the key addressing addressing the relevant content; concepts/ideas most of the relevant failing to identify though failing to fully relevant content; or inaccurately or accurately explain content; identifying and explaining/defining many of them; using identifying and explaining all key terminology, though explaining of the key concepts/ideas; sometimes most of the concepts/ideas; ignoring or inaccurately or key using correct incorrectly inappropriately; and/or concepts/idea terminology explaining key incorporating some key s; using correct explaining the points/claims and claims/points but terminology; reasoning the reasoning failing to explain the explaining the behind key behind them; reasoning behind them reasoning and/or incorrectly or doing so points/claims behind most of and or inappropriately inaccurately. Elements the key substantiating, using of the required points/claims; as terminology; and response may also be and/or where necessary/usef elements of the lacking. necessary or ul, points with response are useful, several lacking. substantiating accurate and some points illuminating with accurate examples. No examples. The aspects of the answer is required complete.42 answer are missing. Use of Zero 5 out 20 10 out 20 15 out 20 20 Sources points: Stude points: Sources are points: References to points: Credible points: Credible (worth a nt failed to seldom cited to Scholarly scholarly maximu include support statements occasionally given; sources are sources are m of citations and/or format of many statements seem used used to give 20% of and/or citations are not unsubstantiated. Frequ effectively compelling the total references. points). Or the th APA 6 Edition th ent errors in APA 6 support claims evidence to Edition format, leaving and are, for the support claims student failed format. There are the reader confused most part, clear and are clearly to submit a major errors in the about the source of and fairly final paper. formation of the the information. There represented. A Gramma Zero r (worth recognizable as scholarly sources are th and fairly represented. A PA 6th Edition references and are significant errors of PA 6 Edition citations. And/or the formation in the is used with format is used there is a major references and only a few accurately and reliance on highly citations. And/or there minor consistently. questionable. The is a significant use of errors. There The student Student fails to highly questionable are minor errors uses above the provide an sources. in reference maximum adequate synthesis and/or citations. required of research And/or there is references in collected for the some use of the paper. questionable development of sources.19 the assignment. 5 points out of points: Stude 20: The paper 10 points out 20: The 15 points out of 20 points: The paper is often unclear 20: The paper paper is clear, maximu nt failed to does not and difficult to follow is mostly clear concise, and a m of submit the communicate due to some as a result of 20% of final paper. ideas/points inappropriate appropriate use read as a result total clearly due to terminology and/or of terminology of appropriate points) inappropriate use vague language; ideas and minimal and precise use pleasure to of terminology and may be fragmented, vagueness; no of terminology; vague language; wandering and/or tangents and total thoughts and repetitive; poor no repetition; coherence of sentences are organization; and/or fairly good thoughts and disjointed or some grammatical, organization; presentation incomprehensible punctuation, spelling ; organization errors almost perfect and logical grammar, organization; an lacking; and/or spelling, d the essay is numerous punctuation, error free. grammatical, and word spelling/punctuati usage. 18 on errors Structur Zero 3 points out of 10: 5 points out of 10: 7 points out of 10 points: 10: Research Student e of the points: Stude Student needs to Appearance of final Paper nt failed to develop better paper demonstrates the paper presents provides a high- (worth submit the formatting skills. student’s limited ability an above- caliber, 10% of final paper. The paper omits to format the paper. average use of formatted total significant There are significant formatting skills. paper. This points) structural elements errors in formatting The paper has includes an required for and and/or the total slight errors APA 6th edition APA 6th edition omission of major within the cover page, paper. Formatting components of an APA paper. This can abstract, page of the paper has 6th edition paper. The include small number, major flaws. The can include the errors or headers and is paper does not omission of the cover omissions with double spaced page, abstract, and the cover page, in 12’ Times edition page numbers. abstract, page Roman Font. requirements Additionally the page number, and Additionally the whatsoever. has major formatting headers. There paper conforms issues with spacing or could be also paragraph formation. slight formatting number of Font size might not issues with the required written conform with size document pages and requirements. The spacing or the neither goes student also font Additionally over or under significantly writes too the paper might the specified conform to APA 6th to the specific large or too short of and slightly exceed length of the paper paper. or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 8 87. Thanks completing the case brief for the assignment. I observed some minor issues with the case brief. You did a good job overall. I understand this is a new task at the graduate level. Review other case briefs for insight. This exercise shows how executive decisions via legal decisions impact society. Work on developing a graduate writing style expressing case specifics. This action will improve the next brief. Case briefs require a detailed language expressing key aspects of the brief. Finally, good job with the first brief. CMRJ601 Brief 1 Village of Euclid, OH v. Ambler Realty Co. Dr. Chuck Russo DATE Name and Citation of Case: Village of Euclid, OH v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926). Decision: Ordinances in general scope with dominant features are a valid excuse/use of authority. Zoning thus is a valid use of the police powers of local and county governments as they bear a rational relation to the health and safety of a community. How the Vote Decided: Majority Opinion, Concurring, Dissenting: The majority opinion was written by Justice Sutherland and was joined by Chief Justice Taft, Justice Brandeis, Justice Sanford, Justice Holmes and Justice Stone. (Berg-Andersson & Roza, 2010) There appears to be no concurring opinion in this case. The dissenting opinion consisted of Justice Van Devanter, Justice McReynolds and Justice Butler. (Village of Euclid, OH v. Ambler Realty Co., 1926) Fact Summary and Legal History: Ambler Realty Co. (Ambler) owned a 68 acre tract of land within the city limits of Euclid, OH (Euclid). Euclid in 1922 adopted an ordinance that established a comprehensive zoning plan that impacted the tract owned by Ambler. Ambler believed the enactment of this ordinance significantly and negatively impacted the potential value and use of their tract and believe the ordinance thus consisted of an unlawful “seizure” depriving Ambler of liberty and property without due process. (Village of Euclid, OH v. Ambler Realty Co., 1926) 1 CMRJ601 Brief 1 Village of Euclid, OH v. Ambler Realty Co. Dr. Chuck Russo DATE Major Question (s) or Issue(s) Presented by the Case: As stated in the Justice Sutherland’s (1926) written opinion, “Is the ordinance invalid, in that it violates the constitutional provision “to the right of property in the appellee by attempted regulations under the guise of the police power, which are unreasonable and confiscatory”?” Is the broad and sweeping ordinance set forth by Euclid in this case a constitutional use of municipal powers? Summary of the Court’s Reasoning in Reaching the Answer: The court concluded that this Ambler’s argument was not based upon an identified present infringement or denial of a specific right but rather upon a broad speculation the existence of such an ordinance and it’s potential enforcement adversely affected the value of the tract and the opportunities to develop, market and sell or otherwise utilize the tract. The court concluded that such a challenge would force the court to scrutinize, analyze and examine each and every provision, line, and sentence to determine if any component or subcomponent of the ordinance may, if challenged specifically, be deemed unconstitutional. This was something the court refused to undertake. The court concluded, as stated in Justice Sutherland’s written opinion, that the Euclid ordinance “… in its general scope and dominant features, so far as its provisions are here involved, is a valid exercise of authority, leaving other provisions to be dealt with as cases arise directly involving them.” (Village of Euclid, OH v. Ambler Realty Co., 1926) Summary of Significant Concurring and Dissenting Opinions: Internet searches failed to locate a concurring or dissenting written opinion concerning this case. References were located that indicated Justices Van Devanter, McReynolds and Butler dissented with Justice Sutherland’s written opinion. (Village of Euclid, OH v. Ambler Realty Co., 1926; Berg-Andersson & Roza, 2010) 2 CMRJ601 Brief 1 Village of Euclid, OH v. Ambler Realty Co. Dr. Chuck Russo DATE Significance: What Does This Opinion Mean for the Law? This opinion clearly established the constitutionality of the concept of zoning and the police powers of the local government. It established that an ordinance forming a comprehensive zoning plan was clearly within the right of local governments in that it bears a direct relation to a government’s need, want, duty and ability to care for the welfare, health and safety of the community. This decision strengthened the emerging concept/practice of zoning and helped to define the broad and sweeping police powers of a local government. In addition, it established that general broad, sweeping challenges to such an ordinance or comprehensive plan will not be entertained by the court while at the same time specific challenges to particular provisions contained in an ordinance or comprehensive plan may/will be entertained by the court. Personal Interpretation and Substance? I feel the court struck a balance in that while broad general challenges that consist of mere speculation or potentials, such as ifs, will not be entertained, specific challenges that have a basis in grounds, evidence, or other substance may/will be entertained by the court. This demonstrated that challenges consisting of essentially nothing more than guesses or a general “we just don’t like it” are not sufficient to bring forward to the court but challenges that have solid and specific arguments could/would be heard. There is a reasonableness to such an opinion that strikes a balance between substance and speculation. The court demonstrated understanding that while such a comprehensive plan may accidentally or unfortunately exclude a business or entity not intended for exclusion from specific area, this unintended consequence does not invalidate the constitutionality of the specific ordinance or 3 CMRJ601 Brief 1 Village of Euclid, OH v. Ambler Realty Co. Dr. Chuck Russo DATE comprehensive plan or the broad and sweeping police powers of the local government in safeguarding the health, safety and welfare of its community. Reference(s): Berg-Andersson, R. & Roza, T. (2010, August 08). Justices of the United States Supreme Court. Retrieved from http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/JusticesUSSC.html FindLaw. (n.d.). Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=272&invol=365 Village of Euclid, OH v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926). 4 CMRJ601 Brief X Name v. Name, Volume Source Page (Court Date). YOUR NAME TODAYS DATE Name and Citation of Case: Decision: Describes the final action of the court (e.g., reversed, remanded, affirmed, vacated, etc.) How the Vote Decided: Majority Opinion, Concurring, Dissenting: Fact Summary and Legal History: Facts are exactly that – the record of the dispute established in the courts below. Why is there a controversy? Major Question (s) or Issue(s) Presented by the Case: All judicial opinions are framed around what the court believes to be the core questions presented by the case before it. Each decision, thus, focuses on and authoritatively answers the issues treated by the court. Summary of the Court’s Reasoning in Reaching the Answer: Each decision focuses on and authoritatively answers the questions and issues raised by the court. The disposition of these matters is largely the basis of stare decisis – the doctrine of precedent. This doctrine holds that similar cases should be treated similarly. This gives the law a measure of continuity and certainty. Precedent also limits the discretion of judges. In this section of the brief, you reconstruct and summarize in your own words the central reasoning (or argument) used by the court to answer the issues it addresses. Much of the written opinion will not be directly germane in that it will deal with subsidiary points – points not directly CMRJ601 Brief X Name v. Name, Volume Source Page (Court Date). YOUR NAME TODAYS DATE relevant to the core issue at hand. This subsidiary discussion is called obiter dicta, and has a number of interesting uses. However it is irrelevant to the disposition of the issue at hand in the specific case before the court. Summary of Significant Concurring and Dissenting Opinions: The reasoning in all concurring opinions should be summarized in this section of the brief. Justices can concur in the majority of position in one of two ways, and precisely how they concur is very important. First they can concur in the opinion of the court. This means that they agree with the reasoning used in the majority in settling the issue in the case. Second, they can concur in the judgment of the court. This means that they agree with the result of the majority’s disposition of the case (e.g., reverse, affirm, etc.), but for reasons different from those offered by the majority. Because of this disagreement with the reasoning of the majority, the votes of these justices do not count as an endorsement of the result reached by that opinion. Traditionally, the establishment of a controlling doctrine requires that at least five members of the court agree to the reasoning offered by the majority. You will find that, over time, not only do written concurrences increase, but that their centrality to the meaning in of any given court decision (e.g., Does it establish a precedent binding on lower state and federal courts?) grows more important as well. They are als significant indicators of the decision-making dynamics on the court (e.g., coalitions, voting behaviors, tensions over the substance and direction of the doctrinal development). As such, you want to track these opinions very closely. Sometimes there are justices who do not agree with either the reasoning used or result reached by the majority. These justices write to express the basis of their disagreement with the majority. The reasoning in all dissenting opinions should be summarized in this section of the brief. CMRJ601 Brief X Name v. Name, Volume Source Page (Court Date). YOUR NAME TODAYS DATE Significance: What Does This Opinion Mean for the Law? This section of the brief discusses why the case is important. For example, it can not significant deviations from past doctrine or the extensions of previous doctrine. Given the focus of the class, it is also useful to note in your brief who writes which opinions, and who joins which blocs. Shifts in judicial alignments will often influence the outcome of a given case or string of cases. Personal Interpretation and Substance? This section of the brief permits you to offer your own personal opinions which should bet be reflected in the balance of the brief. Reference(s): The case and supporting materials/matter you utilized in completing this brief. All references listed here, as well as citations utilized to support/document your work above must be in APA format based on the 6th edition of the APA manual. The text that appears below the above line should not be included in your submitted work. This template was developed from Krislov’s Judicial Process and Constitutional Law (1972). Krislov, S. (1972) Judicial process and constitutional law. Boston, MA: Little Brown & Co. CMRJ601 Brief X Name v. Name, Volume Source Page (Court Date). YOUR NAME TODAYS DATE
Purchase answer to see full attachment