Jones in Review: Limitations of the Scalia rule

This week, Cybercrime Review is featuring a series of posts that takes a look at how federal and state courts are applying the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Jones (previously discussed here).

Several courts have refused to completely throw out evidence obtained as the result of GPS device use. One court did so after finding the situation more like Knotts and Karo, another after finding the taint of GPS use was cured, one under inevitable discovery and standing issues, and several others under the good faith exception.

United States v. Arrendondo, 2012 WL 1677055 (M.D. Fla. 2012)

Law enforcement placed a GPS device in a package being shipped through UPS containing cocaine. Once the package was picked up, law enforcement used the tracking to follow the defendant. The defendant argued that Jones made the GPS use unconstitutional, but the court held that Karo and Knotts allowed the use because law enforcement did not trespass on the defendant’s vehicle - they only opened the package and placed the device in it.

State v. Adams, 2012 WL 1416414 (S.C. Ct. App. 2012)

Police unlawfully placed a GPS device on a vehicle. Five days later, a policeman in another state was notified to be on the lookout for the vehicle, and to “stop it if it violated any traffic laws.” After seeing the car change lanes twice without use of a signal, he pulled the it over, and drugs were found. Though the use of GPS was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the taint was cured by the intervening criminal acts.

United States v. Santillanes, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40532 (E.D. Mich. 2012)
Defendants were arguing a motion to suppress after GPS was used without a search warrant in the investigation. No objection could be made to certain evidence because the defendants did not have standing. Inevitable discovery saved the other evidence because the GPS information was not necessary to finding it. Another standing case is United States v. Hanna, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11385 (S.D. Fla. 2012).

United States v. Amaya, 2012 WL 1188456 (N.D. Iowa 2012)

Despite the use of GPS in violation of the Fourth Amendment, suppression was not required because the good faith exception applied under Davis. Thus, suppression is not required for pre-Jones GPS usage in the Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits. See also United States v. Fata, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66759 (D. Nev. 2012); United States v. Aquilar, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64139 (D. Idaho 2012); United States v. Leon, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42737 (D. Haw. 2012). (Read more about this issue here.)

United States v. Illescas, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74594 (N.D. Ala. 2012)
Upheld the use evidence obtained through the use of GPS pre-Jones because 1981 precedent on beepers (from the old Fifth Circuit) provided a good faith application. (Read more here.)