Antoine Jones owned and operated a nightclub in the District of Columbia. Government agents suspected that he was also trafficking in narcotics. As part of their investigation, agents obtained a warrant to attach a global positioning system (GPS) to Jones's wife's car, which he used regularly. The warrant authorized installation in the District of Columbia and within ten days, but agents installed the device on the eleventh day and in Maryland. The agents then tracked the vehicle's movement for about a month, eventually arresting Jones for possession and intent to distribute cocaine. Jones was convicted. He appealed, arguing that the government did not have a valid warrant for the GPS tracking. The United States Supreme Court held that the attachment of a GPS tracking device to a suspect's vehicle does constitute a Fourth Amendment search. The Court did not rule on whether the search in this case was unreasonable, however, and allowed Jones's conviction to stand.

Note: Can you please answer this question using IRAC( Issue, Rule of Law, Analysis, and Conclusion) format. Because then it will be easy for me to understand the case a a lot better.