In US v. Jones, the judicial branch was faced with the debatable question of whether or not the Fourth Amendment had been violated (). Since this case was not black and white and raised many questions about what was constitutional, the judges had to resort to judicial review. Judicial review is the power that allows judges to interpret the meaning of laws (Class, March 13). Once a law is understood in a certain way, people must follow it (Class, __). The case of USA v. Jones concerns the Bill of Rights (United, 1). This is due to the fact that the Fourth Amendment is included in the Bill of Rights document which states that “searches and seizures” cannot be made without a warrant (Class,___). The case of US v Jones concerned Jones' violation of the Fourth Amendment when a GPS device was placed on his Jeep without his consent on suspicion of drug possession (United, 1). Because judges have the power to informally amend the Constitution using judicial review (Class, ___), they must consider many contributing elements when making a decision. In order to understand the court's ruling, we must first look at what happened before it reached the Supreme Court. First, the government obtained a search warrant allowing the installation of a GPS on the jeep. However, the GPS must have been installed in DC and within the ten day period in which it was released. GPS was installed on the 11th in Maryland (Cornell 3-4). He was suspected of possessing and distributing drugs, so with the help of GPS, FBI agents were able to find out where he was hiding his stash (Savage 1). The Jeep was monitored for a total of 28 days (Cornell 3). This case originally began in the lower court. The United States Court or... middle document... gave its consent to the installation, this action should be considered a “violation” (Supreme 7). Dreeben has a weak follow-up statement saying it could be considered a “technical violation,” but that would then make US v. Karo a technical violation (Supreme 7). Here, Dreeben illustrates the “but he did it too” tactic that younger kids use when questioned after getting into trouble. Children say this when they really don't know what to say or how to justify their actions. Dreeben realizes that this would be considered a violation, which would therefore mean that it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, he tried to return to the method of placing the blame on someone else because during this period he struggled to justify an opposing point of view towards Jones. The Court moves from the issue of home invasions to the issue of GPS warrants (Supreme 17).