Court finds evidence obtained with GPS violates 4th Amend., does not fit good faith exception, but still not subject to suppression

In United States v. Taylor, 1:12-cr-00042 (S.D. Ind. 2013), the district court held that evidence obtained as a result of GPS tracking on a vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment and, while it is not subject to admission under the Davis good faith exception, the evidence may still be used because it was objectively reasonable for law enforcement to rely the judicial authorization.

Police sought to put a GPS device on the defendant's vehicle after receiving a tip that the defendant was in possession of cocaine. The judicial authorization from a state court gave law enforcement the ability to use GPS tracking for sixty days and allowed it to "be powered either by an internal battery or by connecting [the GPS Unit] to the battery of the vehicle." Using the tracking, police were able to find a storage unit rented by the defendant, and after a narcotics dog gave a positive indication, cocaine was found during a search of the unit.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine and filed a motion to suppress the evidence because, he argued, it was obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The federal district court agreed, finding that under United States v. Jones, the use of the GPS device without a warrant was a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

In many recent cases, however, despite such a decision, courts have often held that the Davis good faith exception would still allow the evidence to be used., but that was not the case here. The district court held that Davis applies when suppression would not deter wrongful police conduct. Here, suppression would "create an incentive for law enforcement 'to err on the side of constitutional behavior.'"

Nonetheless, the court found that suppression was not appropriate because it was objectively reasonable for police to rely on the judicial authorization they had received.

Instead of unilaterally deciding that they could attach the GPS Unit to Mr. Taylor's car, law enforcement sought and received judicial authorization to use the GPS Unit from the Marion Superior Court. 

When, as here, law enforcement officers seek judicial authorization for their actions—a step that courts should not discourage—and they receive such authorization, it is objectively reasonable for them to believe that the authorized actions do “not violate the Fourth Amendment.”