Explore the vast range of titles available.

This case offers the students the opportunity to apply their knowledge of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as it applies to the concept of unreasonable search and seizure. With this particular case problem being based on the recent action involving the defendant, Rodney Brossart and the State of North Dakota, wherein an unmanned military grade drone was used by the local police department, for the first time in the United States, to affect an arrest.

The Government obtained a search warrant permitting it to install a Global-Positioning Device (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle registered to respondent Jones's wife. The warrant authorized installation in the District of Columbia and within 10 days, but agents installed the device on the 11th day and in Maryland. The Government then tracked the vehicle's movements for 28 days. It subsequently secured an indictment of Jones and others on drug trafficking and conspiracy charges. The District Court suppressed the GPS data obtained while the vehicle was parked at Jones's residence, but held the remaining data admissible because Jones had no reasonable expectation of privacy when the vehicle was on public streets. Jones was convicted. The D. C. Circuit reversed, concluding that admission of the evidence obtained by warrantless use of the GPS device violated the Fourth Amendment. No. 10-1259. Argued November 8, 2011--Decided January 23, 2012 [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

The manuscript entitled Are Private Military Firms The Answer To The Expanding Global Crisis? was retracted on December 5, 2014. Please contact our office at Journals@CluteInstitute.com for more information.