I was curious about the genesis of the newest SCOTUS decision to come down the pipe, and you’ll be interested (leave me my delusions!) to know what I learned.
In the original case, U.S. v. Jones, Jones (who generally appears to be a misanthrope (not that that makes any difference to his civil rights)) moved to suppress evidence gathered when the police put a tracking device on his car and used it to see where he was going:
Jones also has moved to suppress the data obtained from an electronic tracking device-a Global Positioning System (“GPS”)-which law enforcement agents placed on his Jeep Cherokee pursuant to an Order issued by the Honorable Paul L. Friedman on September 16, 2005. In support of the motion, Jones advances two arguments. First, he contends that Special Agent Yanta’s affidavit in support of the application for GPS authorization lacked probable cause to believe that his vehicle “was in any manner being used for criminal activity.” (Def.’s Omnibus Mot. at 18.) Second, Jones asserts that the government placed the GPS device on his vehicle both after the Order authorizing its *88 placement had expired and while the vehicle was located outside of the issuing court’s jurisdiction. (See Defendant Jones’ Supplemental Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion at 3-6.) In response, while conceding the “technical” violations of the September 10, 2005 Order (Gov’t’s Omnibus Opp’n at 52 n. 12), the government contends that the placement of the GPS device was proper-“even in the complete absence of a court order”-because Jones lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whereabouts of his vehicle. (Id. at 51.)U.S. v. Jones, 451 F. Supp. 2d 71, 87-88 (D.D.C. 2006) aff’d in part, rev’d in part sub nom.U.S. v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010) aff’d in part sub nom.U.S. v. Jones, 10-1259, 2012 WL 171117 (U.S. 2012) [emphasis added]