Christopher Wertz v. State of Indiana
41 N.E.3d 276
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- On Sept. 9, 2011, Christopher Wertz crashed his car; his passenger died. Officers recovered a personal Garmin GPS device from the scene.
- About a week later officers obtained written consent from Wertz in hospital (trial court later found consent invalid) and obtained the device's PIN by contacting Garmin; they then accessed historical location, route, and speed data.
- Wertz was charged with reckless homicide and moved to suppress the GPS data; the trial court denied suppression, holding no reasonable expectation of privacy in the device.
- After Riley v. California was decided, Wertz renewed the suppression motion; the trial court again denied it and certified the interlocutory order for appeal.
- The Court of Appeals considered whether a warrantless search of a personal GPS unit (and its stored historical location data) violates the Fourth Amendment and whether the automobile exception or other doctrines permit the search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Wertz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a personal GPS device found in a vehicle can be searched without a warrant under the automobile exception | GPS is like a locked container in a car; automobile exception permits warrantless search of vehicle contents | GPS is a digital storage device akin to a cell phone/computer; not a container and stores private data requiring a warrant | Court: GPS device is not a container under the automobile exception; cannot be searched without a warrant |
| Whether historical location data on the GPS is protected by the Fourth Amendment | Location/movement data is public in nature (Knotts); less privacy protection | Historical location data is highly personal and can reconstruct movements; Riley and Jones protect such data | Court: reasonable expectation of privacy in detailed historical location data; warrant required absent exigency |
| Whether Jones and Riley control here | State: Riley addresses search-incident-to-arrest only; automobile exception still applies | Wertz: Riley’s reasoning about digital privacy transcends that exception; Jones concurrences show long-term/location monitoring implicates privacy | Court: Riley and Jones concurrences apply; their privacy analysis extends to automobile-exception contexts for electronic devices |
| Whether the exclusionary rule should bar admission of GPS-derived evidence | Officers reasonably relied on existing precedent (Knotts, Acevedo); exclusionary rule should not apply | No binding precedent authorized warrantless search of electronic device storing historical location; exclusionary rule appropriate | Court: Exclusionary rule applies; officers could not reasonably rely on binding precedent to conduct the warrantless GPS search |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (digital searches of cell phones generally require a warrant; digital data implicates substantial privacy interests)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (installation/use of a GPS tracker can be a Fourth Amendment search; concurrences emphasize privacy concerns from long‑term location monitoring)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (Fourth Amendment protects reasonable expectations of privacy)
- Knotts v. United States, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (monitoring movements in public via transmitter did not violate Fourth Amendment under facts of that case)
- California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991) (automobile exception permits warrantless search of containers in vehicle when probable cause exists)
- Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465 (1999) (reaffirming automobile exception where probable cause exists)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits on search-incident-to-arrest in vehicle context and reminder that warrantless searches are exceptions)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (exclusionary rule and good-faith exception)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (exclusionary rule inapplicable when officers reasonably rely on binding precedent)