s it a reasonable progression based on the Court’s analysis to require a warrant before the government places a GPS on a vehicle? Why or why not?
I believe this is a reasonable progression. Our vehicles are a place that is not considered public and one in which we all have a reasonable expectation of privacy. In Katz v United States, the Supreme Court determined that the 4th Amendment protects people and not places. So the mere fact that law enforcement would be placing an electronic device on the outside of the car (akin to the outside of the phone booth in the Katz case) rather than actually accessing the inside of the car to place a tracking device is irrelevant, as the subject of the surveillance/search is protected by the 4th amendment, not the location in which the individual finds himself.
Based on the Court’s interpretation of the right to privacy under the 4th Amendment, should a warrant be required to place a GPS? Why or why not?
A warrant should absolutely be required to place a GPS tracking device on a citizen or their property. As indicated above, a person’s private automobile extends a reasonable expectation of privacy. In United States v Jones the Supreme Court said as much. Justice Scalia went so far as to say that the government would have had to trespass onto Jones’ property to even place the GPS. Justice Sotomayor added that the 4th amendment protects against not only trespass, but from invasion into any arena where there would be a reasonable expectation of privacy, including one’s automobile.
respond to this discussion question in 100 words