We have made a somewhat extended reference to these statutes to show that the guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment has been construed, practically since the beginning of the Government, as recognizing a necessary difference between a search of a store, dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a proper official warrant readily may be obtained, and a search of a ship, motor boat, wagon or automobile, for contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), however, the Court established the right to privacy as a defense against warrantless searches.
1) Briefly summarize Katz v. United States. Please read the case at the link below.
2) United States v. Jones, an appeal from the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals that went on to the Supreme Court, on the issue of whether a warrant is needed to attach a GPS tracking device to a vehicle. Briefly summarize United States v. Jones. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf
3) Which argument do you find more persuasive in the Jones case, Scalia’s or Sotomayor’s Why?
Blue Book format for citation