United States v. Jones: Fourth Amendment Applicability in the 21st Century

Thomas K. Clancy

University of Mississippi School of Law

July 2, 2012

Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2012

To control governmental actions, the Fourth Amendment must be applicable. That applicability question is a two sided inquiry: (1) does the governmental activity – which must be either a search or a seizure – invade (2) an individual interest protected by the Amendment? If one does not know what is protected by the Amendment, then it cannot be determined what the government can do without implicating it. If one does know what is protected, governmental intrusions of that protected interest must be analyzed to determine whether they are considered a search or seizure and accordingly required to be reasonable. United States v. Jones addressed that applicability question and is the subject of this essay.

Jones is unlikely to have significant precedential value. The Scalia majority opinion offers little that is new: physical trespasses have always been viewed as implicating the Amendment and his opinion is notable primarily for reiterating that baseline view. The concurring opinions of Alito and Sotomayor offer vague observations about various technologies, using the reasonable expectation of privacy formula to project their views. Their comments are more likely to result in confusion rather than guidance for lower courts, illustrating the failings of the expectations framework. The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.” Grammatically, there is a relational aspect to the right set forth in the Amendment, which speaks of certain objects protected – people, houses, papers, and effects – but those objects are not absolutely shielded. Instead, the right to be “secure” is protected and I have long advocated invigorating that term and using it as the proper measure of the protection afforded by the Amendment. In contrast, Jones is a recycling of twentieth century arguments about property versus privacy that do not adequately confront the issues in the digital age.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 21

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: July 3, 2012 ; Last revised: June 3, 2013

Suggested Citation

Clancy, Thomas K., United States v. Jones: Fourth Amendment Applicability in the 21st Century (July 2, 2012). Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2012. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2097811

Contact Information

Thomas K. Clancy (Contact Author)
University of Mississippi School of Law ( email )
Lamar Law Center
P.O. Box 1848
University, MS 38677
United States
662-832-5244 (Phone)
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,044
Downloads: 149
Download Rank: 137,549

© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 2.203 seconds