United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the use of an electronic surveillance device.[1] The defendants argued that the use of this device was a Fourth Amendment violation. The device in question was described as a beeper that could only be tracked from a short distance. During a single trip, officers followed a car containing the beeper, relying on beeper signal to determine the car's final destination. The Court unanimously held that since the use of such a device did not violate a legitimate expectation of privacy there was no search and seizure and thus the use was allowed without a warrant.[2] It reasoned that a person traveling in public has no expectation of privacy in one's movements. Since there was no search and seizure there was not a Fourth Amendment violation.[2]
Minnesota law enforcement agents suspected that one of the defendants was purchasing chloroform for the manufacture of methamphetamine, an illegal drug, and arranged with the manufacturer to have a radio transmitting beeper placed within the drum of chloroform the next time it was purchased. Following the purchase, the drum was placed into a vehicle driven by another defendant. Police followed the defendants' vehicle after the purchase, maintaining visual contact for most of the journey, however they had to use the beeper to find the cabin where the defendants stopped. The cabin was owned by Leroy Carlton Knotts, the respondent in this case. Following visual surveillance of his cabin, the authorities acquired a warrant to search the premises, and used the evidence found therein to convict Knotts.[3]
Decisionedit
The Court ruled that a "person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another.”[4] Such information—the starting point, the stops one made, as well as the final destination—was voluntarily conveyed to anyone.[5] There was no search and seizure and hence no Fourth Amendment violation because this information could be gathered by the public through observation.[6] The police used visual surveillance to gather the majority of this information, just because the final location of the automobile was learned through the use of the beeper and not visually, did not make the surveillance illegal.[5] There was no indication that the beeper was used to gather information from within the private area of Knotts' cabin.[7]
Recent developmentedit
Nearly three decades later, the Court decided United States v. Jones (2012), a case concerning the federal government's installation of a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a suspect's vehicle and its use to continuously monitor that vehicle's location for 28 days.[8] The Court voted 9–0 against the government. The five justice majority opinion was based exclusively on a finding of trespass in the GPS installation. Because of the trespass, it was unnecessary to consider whether there was a violation of an expectation of privacy based on using the GPS for long term, continuous surveillance. However in the two concurring opinions, five of the Court's justices did find that there was a violation of such an expectation.[9] It is likely that in an identical, but with an absence of trespass, case, they would be a majority ruling against the government. This ruling would narrow Knotts' broad rule that one does not have an expectation of privacy when traveling public streets, by excluding long-term surveillance.[9]
^"United States v. Jones" (PDF). United States Supreme Court. Retrieved October 23, 2012.
^ ab"United States v. Jones" (PDF). Sotomayor's concurrence, p. 4; Alito's concurrence, p. 13.
External linksedit
Text of United States v. Knotts, 460U.S. 276 (1983) is available from:CourtListenerFindlawGoogle ScholarJustiaLibrary of CongressOyez (oral argument audio)
February 13, 2024
united, states, knotts, this, article, relies, excessively, references, primary, sources, please, improve, this, article, adding, secondary, tertiary, sources, find, sources, news, newspapers, books, scholar, jstor, november, 2019, learn, when, remove, this, t. This article relies excessively on references to primary sources Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources Find sources United States v Knotts news newspapers books scholar JSTOR November 2019 Learn how and when to remove this template message United States v Knotts 460 U S 276 1983 was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the use of an electronic surveillance device 1 The defendants argued that the use of this device was a Fourth Amendment violation The device in question was described as a beeper that could only be tracked from a short distance During a single trip officers followed a car containing the beeper relying on beeper signal to determine the car s final destination The Court unanimously held that since the use of such a device did not violate a legitimate expectation of privacy there was no search and seizure and thus the use was allowed without a warrant 2 It reasoned that a person traveling in public has no expectation of privacy in one s movements Since there was no search and seizure there was not a Fourth Amendment violation 2 United States v KnottsSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued December 6 1982Decided March 2 1983Full case nameUnited States v KnottsCitations460 U S 276 more 103 S Ct 1081 75 L Ed 2d 55 1983 U S LEXIS 135Case historyPrior662 F 2d 515 8th Cir 1981 cert granted 457 U S 1131 1982 HoldingA radio transmitter may be used without a warrant to aid the police in their physical pursuit of a suspect Court membershipChief Justice Warren E Burger Associate Justices William J Brennan Jr Byron WhiteThurgood Marshall Harry BlackmunLewis F Powell Jr William RehnquistJohn P Stevens Sandra Day O ConnorCase opinionsMajorityRehnquist joined by Burger White Powell O ConnorConcurrenceBrennan joined by MarshallConcurrenceBlackmun joined by Brennan Marshall StevensConcurrenceStevens joined by Brennan MarshallLaws appliedU S Const amend IV Contents 1 Background 2 Decision 3 Recent development 4 See also 5 References 6 External linksBackground editMinnesota law enforcement agents suspected that one of the defendants was purchasing chloroform for the manufacture of methamphetamine an illegal drug and arranged with the manufacturer to have a radio transmitting beeper placed within the drum of chloroform the next time it was purchased Following the purchase the drum was placed into a vehicle driven by another defendant Police followed the defendants vehicle after the purchase maintaining visual contact for most of the journey however they had to use the beeper to find the cabin where the defendants stopped The cabin was owned by Leroy Carlton Knotts the respondent in this case Following visual surveillance of his cabin the authorities acquired a warrant to search the premises and used the evidence found therein to convict Knotts 3 Decision editThe Court ruled that a person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another 4 Such information the starting point the stops one made as well as the final destination was voluntarily conveyed to anyone 5 There was no search and seizure and hence no Fourth Amendment violation because this information could be gathered by the public through observation 6 The police used visual surveillance to gather the majority of this information just because the final location of the automobile was learned through the use of the beeper and not visually did not make the surveillance illegal 5 There was no indication that the beeper was used to gather information from within the private area of Knotts cabin 7 Recent development editNearly three decades later the Court decided United States v Jones 2012 a case concerning the federal government s installation of a Global Positioning System GPS tracking device on a suspect s vehicle and its use to continuously monitor that vehicle s location for 28 days 8 The Court voted 9 0 against the government The five justice majority opinion was based exclusively on a finding of trespass in the GPS installation Because of the trespass it was unnecessary to consider whether there was a violation of an expectation of privacy based on using the GPS for long term continuous surveillance However in the two concurring opinions five of the Court s justices did find that there was a violation of such an expectation 9 It is likely that in an identical but with an absence of trespass case they would be a majority ruling against the government This ruling would narrow Knotts broad rule that one does not have an expectation of privacy when traveling public streets by excluding long term surveillance 9 See also editList of United States Supreme Court cases volume 460 Olmstead v United States 1928 Kyllo v United States 2001 Katz v United States 1967 United States v Garcia 2d Cir 2007 United States v Pineda Moreno 9th Cir 2010 References edit United States v Knotts 460 U S 276 1983 nbsp This article incorporates public domain material from this U S government document a b Knotts 460 U S at 285 Knotts 460 U S at 278 79 Knotts 460 U S at 281 a b Knotts 460 U S at 282 Knotts 460 U S at 282 285 Knotts 460 U S at 284 85 United States v Jones PDF United States Supreme Court Retrieved October 23 2012 a b United States v Jones PDF Sotomayor s concurrence p 4 Alito s concurrence p 13 External links editText of United States v Knotts 460 U S 276 1983 is available from CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez oral argument audio Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title United States v Knotts amp oldid 1175151659, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
