Commonwealth v. Burgos
64 A.3d 641
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background
- Detectives used wiretaps in a narcotics investigation leading to arrests and informants identifying Burgos and his Georgia-Michigan drug trips.
- CS #1 and CS #2 provided Burgos’s full name, residence, and a photo; their information was corroborated by wiretaps and surveillance.
- On March 25, 2011, a court issued an order authorizing a mobile tracking device on Burgos’s white Dodge Ram; device placed March 28, 2011.
- GPS monitoring traced Burgos’s movements to Allentown and other states, culminating in a traffic stop on April 3/4, 2011 and a vehicle search.
- A subsequent search of Burgos’s North Mohr Street residence was supported by information derived from the vehicle tracking and informants.
- Burgos was charged with drug offenses; Burgos moved to suppress GPS data, vehicle search results, and Mohr Street residence search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GPS tracking is a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause | Burgos: Jones controls; GPS is a search requiring probable cause. | Commonwealth: GPS tracking is governed by Section 5761 and may rely on reasonable suspicion. | GPS tracking is a search; probable cause is required. |
| Whether Section 5761 remains applicable or Pennsylvania Rules govern | Burgos: Jones renders Section 5761 inapplicable and Pa.R.Crim.P. governs. | Commonwealth: Section 5761 remains the lawful framework and orders function as equivalents to warrants. | Section 5761 remains applicable; wiretap orders are the functional equivalent of warrants. |
| Whether the wiretap order was supported by probable cause under Section 5761 | Burgos: order supported by probable cause under the totality of circumstances. | Commonwealth: information from informants and corroboration established probable cause; officers acted within the statute. | Probable cause supported the wiretap order. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (GPS monitoring constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment)
- Commonwealth v. Ayala, 791 A.2d 1202 (Pa. Super. 2002) (state privacy protections; balancing privacy interests)
- Commonwealth v. Blystone, 549 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1988) (Wiretap Act safeguards balance privacy and law enforcement needs)
- Commonwealth v. Beasley, 761 A.2d 621 (Pa. Super. 2000) (protecting privacy under Pennsylvania law)