Explain the Court holding in United States v. Knotts dealing with ...

[cagreen833]

Explain the Court holding in United States v. Knotts dealing with beepers and the Court holding in United States v. Jones dealing with a GPS device. Are they in conflict? What does the Court say about the old concept on the issue of constitutionality of electronic surveillance?
 
  What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

In Restorative Justice, Sullivan and Tifft reaffirm their belief that society must seek ___________ forms of justice without resorting to brutal punishment.
 
  Fill in the blank(s) with correct word

[tdewitt]

Answer to Question 1

In United States v. Knotts, the Court held that the use of tracking devices (beeper)
to keep track of a person traveling on public roads does not constitute a search,
because a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy when traveling on a
public thoroughfare. In United States v. Jones, the Court held that attaching a
global positioning system (GPS) device to a motor vehicle and using that device to
monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
They are not in conflict because they both stated such devices could be used on
public highways. The problem arises when the vehicle is on private property, such
as in Jones, when the vehicle was parked in the defendant's driveway. This was
based on the old concept of property.

Answer to Question 2

humanitarian

[cagreen833]

Wow, this really help

[mcabuhat]

Thanks for the timely response, appreciate it