Antoine Jones was in the federal penitentiary yesterday when the details of his drug conviction came before a federal appeals panel in the Constitution Avenue courthouse.
We were not on hand either, but make no mistake about it: Our privacy was on trial.
Jones is serving life for his role as kingpin in a cocaine distribution ring that brought hundreds of pounds of cocaine from Mexico to the D.C. area from 2003 to 2005. A jury found him guilty; a judge put him away for life.
But did the FBI agents go beyond their power and violate Jones’ rights when they attached a Global Positioning System device to his Jeep — without a warrant? This is the question for the three judges, and for us.
“The essence of the case is whether we as a society want to get close to a world run by Big Brother,” says Dan Prywes, a lawyer with the Bryan Cave firm who helped the American Civil Liberties Union argue for protecting privacy rights. “Does the government have the right to follow anyone without getting a warrant?”
Jones is not quite the model citizen. Reading the case files and listening to lawyers, I have to wonder — couldn’t they have picked a soccer mom to argue privacy?
According to court documents, Jones owned Levels, a nightclub at 1960 Montana Ave. SE. Customers ate and drank and danced — and scored cocaine. Federal agents with the Safe Streets Task Force started investigating Jones for trafficking in 2004. They installed surveillance cameras around the club; they got warrants to tap Jones’ phones.
They also slapped a GPS on his Jeep Cherokee. It allowed agents to track Jones from his club to the various safe houses where he stashed the cocaine and cash. They neglected to get a judge’s permission.
On Oct. 24, 2005, feds executed search warrants and took down Jones’ ring. They found nearly 100 kilograms of cocaine and close to $1 million in cash. It was the largest seizure of cocaine in area history, the Justice Department said.
The GPS tracks were part of the mountain of evidence used to convict and put away Jones. Defense lawyers said the evidence was not admissible, the judge disagreed, they appealed.
The government argued in its briefs that Jones “had no reasonable expectation of privacy” because he was traveling on public streets; the ACLU said: “Without a warrant requirement, an individual’s every movement could be subject to remote monitoring” at the whim of a police officer.
In court yesterday, Judge Thomas Griffith asked the government’s lawyer if he believed the American public expects the government would follow their vehicle without judicial supervision. The rhetorical question gave the sense he was leaning toward the ACLU position.
Cops in Los Angeles have already answered the question. They shoot GPS darts with adhesive to hit and track cars.
“That’s where we’re headed,” says Prywes.
I’m with him, but either way this court comes down, the case is most likely headed to the Supreme Court.
E-mail Harry Jaffe at [email protected].
