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