Prosecutors are moving forward with a new trial for the District man whose case resulted in a Supreme Court ruling curbing law enforcement's use of warrantless GPS tracking.

The Supreme Court ruled in January that law enforcement officials conducted a search that required a warrant when they placed a GPS device on Antoine Jones' Jeep to track the alleged cocaine dealer for a month in 2005. Investigators didn't have a valid warrant when they placed the GPS.

The high court sent Jones' case back to D.C.'s federal court for further proceedings, and prosecutors intend to try him again.

Judge Ellen Huvelle on Monday tentatively set a May 7 trial and also scheduled a status conference for next week, court records show. Bill Miller, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in the District, confirmed that prosecutors are seeking another trial for Jones but declined to comment how the Supreme Court ruling would affect the government's evidence.

Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!

Please enter your email address below to begin receiving the Politics Today newsletter.

You must enter a valid email address in the field above!

Thank you for signing up for the Politics Today newsletter! You should receive your first newsletter very soon.

We're sorry, there was an error processing your newsletter signup. Please click here to visit our Newsletter Signup Center to register for this newsletter.

Evidence obtained from the GPS tracking formed a key part of the prosecution's case: An indictment details Jones' movements to and from the purported stash house, including how long he spent there on some occasions. But the indictment also describes other evidence against Jones, such as his conversations with other members of the drug ring.

The new trial will be Jones' third. One trial ended in a mistrial; he was convicted at a second trial in 2008 and was sentenced to life in prison.

His case made its way to the Supreme Court after the federal appeals court in D.C. overturned his conviction in 2010, saying the the GPS use violated Jones' reasonable expectations of privacy. 

The Department of Justice had argued that it didn't need a warrant to use a GPS device to track Jones in his vehicle because his movements could be observed on public roadways.