The 2006 case, United States v. Jones, revisited a very important issue that has been and continues to be difficult to tactic as the interpretation "expected privacy" constantly changes with our constantly changing world. In 2008 Antoine Jones was sentenced to life in prisons for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine and 50 or more grams of cocaine base. The United States v. Knotts, on which the prosecutors relied, helped validate the use of some of data obtained from the GPS tracking device. In the appeal that resulted in overturn of Jones' conviction, it argued that although, in Knotts,"(a) person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another, this does not imply to movements whatsoever. In Knotts, the defendant was tracked from point A to B (100 mile), whereas Jones was tracked 24 hours a day for 4 weeks. Because some courts deemed the use of a GPS tracking device not a "search  therefore not a violation of the fourth amendment and the court of appeals did, immediate clarification was needed. In 2011 the US Supreme Court grant the petition for Writ of Certiorari, which is a "document that a losing party files with the Supreme Court asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court." In this documents, it presented the question "Whether the warrantless use of a tracking device on respondent's vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the fourth amendments.  To protect citizens against electronic intrusion in places a one would consider private, the Harlan's reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test was employed, booting out the previous common-law trespassory test. This has created a path of opportunity for law enforcement to physically and technically trespass on one's property if deemed person had no "expectation of privacy . In summary, th