United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983)

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983)

Facts of the Case: 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. 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.

Reason for Approaching the Court of Law: 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 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.

Decision of the Court: 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”. Such information—the starting point, the stops one made, as well as the final destination—was voluntarily conveyed to anyone. There was no search and seizure and hence no Fourth Amendment violation because this information could be gathered by the public through observation. There was no indication that the beeper was used to gather information from within the private area of Knotts' cabin.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Campbell v. Paddington Corporation [1911-1 KB 869]

  Campbell v. Paddington Corporation [1911-1 KB 869] Background: In that case the plaintiff was in possession of a house in London from the windows of which there was an uninterrupted view of part of a certain main thoroughfare along which it was announced that a public procession was to pass.  Reason to approach the Court of Law: The plaintiff rented out certain seats on the first and second floors of the house in order to see the procession. The defendants, a Metropolitan Borough in pursuance of a resolution of their Council to that effect caused a stand to be erected as regards a certain highway in which the plaintiff’s house was situated to enable the members of the Council and their friends to view the procession. On account of this obstruction, the prospective lessees refused to come to observe the procession from the plaintiff’s house. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of damages. Decision Held: It was held in that case that the Metropolitan Borough was not enti...
Read more

BIHAR EASTERN GANGETIC FISHERMEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD v. SIPAHI SINGH (1977)

 BIHAR EASTERN GANGETIC FISHERMEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD v. SIPAHI SINGH (1977) 4 SCC 145  FACTS OF THE CASE:  The fishery rights in the Gangapath Islampur Jalkar which was with the Fishermen Cooperative Society from 1974 to 1975 for Rs. 150000 was made in favour of the respondent Sipahi Singh for the period 1975 to 1976 as a result of the public auction at which he offered the highest bid of Rs. 165000.  However, the respondent requested for a remission in the amount at which the settlement had been made in his favour, on the ground that he had suffered a heavy loss during the year 1975-76, due to the unlawful activities of the appellants and if this was not possible, then in the alternative give him a continuance of fishery rights for the years 1976-1977 and 1977-1978 so that he could recoup his losses. The Government agreed to extend the time for his fishery rights in consideration of a deposit of Rs 165000. However, the government changed its mind later and sett...
Read more

P RATHINAM V UNION OF INDIA [1994 AIR 1844]

  P RATHINAM V UNION OF INDIA [1994 AIR 1844] BACKGROUND OF THE CASE: P. Rathinam and Nagbhushan Patnaik had filed petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court took into consideration various judicial and legal thinking on the subject matter, some of which are briefly discussed in the article.     FACTS OF THE CASE: was the first case that the Supreme Court of India decided in respect of Section 309, IPC. The provision criminalized an attempt to commit suicide. Suicide is generally defined as ‘the action of killing oneself intentionally’. This is the only section in the Indian Penal Code where punishment could be meted for an unsuccessful act only and never for a successful one. In other words, suicide is not a crime, its attempt is. REASON FOR APPROACHING THE COURT F LAW: If a person makes the decision to terminate his life and the same results in death, the person is relieved from agony, pain, and su...
Read more