What would have been a good response for this post.

For the court case United States v Jones, I actually agree with the decision of the Supreme Courts.

Antoine Jones was suspected of trafficking drugs at his nightclub. A joint task force made up of FBI and Metropolitan Police department started an investigation. The officers used visual surveillance at the nightclub, they installed cameras that focused on the front of the door of the club, a pen register and wiretapping Jones' cellphone. Later, they requested a warrant to place an electronic tracking device on vehicle that was registered to Jones' wife. The warrant was approved, and it authorized for the device to place on her car within 10 days and it had to be in the District of Columbia.

Investigators installed the GPS tracking device on the vehicle on the 11th day in a public parking lot in Maryland. Over the next 28 days they used the device to track the vehicle's movements. In March of 2007, Jones was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. The GPS connected to the conspirators' stash house which contained $850,000 in cash, 97 kilograms of cocaine and 1 kilogram of cocaine base.

His conviction was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals. Because the evidence (the GPS data collected) was obtained without a warrant, which violated the fourth amendment.

Smith v. Massachusetts

I agree with the courts.As much as the judge during the case granted Smith's motion of a required finding of not guilty for one of the 3 charges in the indictment (unlawful possession of a firearm). The judge allowed it on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove that the barrel of the gun that Smith possessed was less than 16 inches. Even though She ruled in his favor, and recorded it was never communicated to the Jury. Later in the trial, the Judge reversed her decision, retracted her statement and denied the motion. What supported that decision was commonwealth v. Sperrazza which concluded, "that the jury may infer a barrel length less than 16 inches from testimony that the weapon in question was a revolver or handgun. And in Smith's case, the victim did testify that the gun he saw was .32 or .30 caliber pistol.There was no double jeopardy involved.

Florida v. Harris

This one was confusing. For example, I agree that the defendant should have the opportunity to

Challenge the evidence, and the dog's reliability... it could be done by cross examining the officer or his own expert witness. Pretty much, I agree with probable- cause hearing, and it should run by allowing all parties to make their best case, following the rules of a criminal procedure. In this case, the dog's training records were produced, and they showed the reliability of the police dog's ability to detect drugs, as well as Harris not being able to do anything to show or prove otherwise the trial courts' decision was accurate.

I know during the trial; it was brought up that Aldo could only detect certain narcotics like methamphetamine. The drugs and ingredients found in Harris' truck, like pseudoephedrine, were things that were used to make ("cook") methamphetamine.No wonder the dog suspected something, and also Harris admitted to cooking and manufacturing methamphetamine.