Foltz v. Commonwealth
58 Va. App. 107
Va. Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant Foltz, Jr. was convicted by jury of abduction with intent to defile under Code § 18.2-48 and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Appellant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress eyewitness testimony of police observing the assault, claiming it flowed from GPS tracking on his employer’s van without a warrant.
- Police attached a GPS device to the employer’s van in February 2008 without a warrant or employer permission, after which they observed movements tied to recent assaults.
- Investigators had already focused on Foltz as a prime suspect before GPS use, based on modus operandi and locations of assaults.
- Following a panel decision affirming conviction, the court granted rehearing en banc to address suppression and Fourth Amendment issues.
- The en banc court ultimately held the eyewitness testimony was admissible and did not err in denying suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GPS tracking without a warrant violated Fourth Amendment rights | Foltz argues the GPS tainted subsequent eyewitness evidence | Commonwealth contends no Fourth Amendment violation given context | No Fourth Amendment violation; eyewitness testimony admissible |
| Whether the GPS taint should bar eyewitness testimony as fruit of the poisonous tree | Evidence derived from GPS should be suppressed | Attenuation doctrine applies; independent source | Eyewitness testimony sufficiently attenuated; admissible |
| Whether placement of GPS device on employer’s van violated privacy rights | GPS device invaded privacy; warrant required | Van was employer’s property; public setting; no privacy expectation | No Fourth Amendment violation on placement given facts |
| Whether GPS tracking of employer’s van on public streets violated privacy rights | Tracking movements infringes Fourth Amendment | Movements in public; no reasonable expectation of privacy | No privacy violation; tracking lawful under facts |
| Whether best and narrowest grounds support affirmance on Fourth Amendment basis | Issue should be decisive on Fourth Amendment | We may affirm on substantive Fourth Amendment grounds | Affirmed on Fourth Amendment grounds as not violated by facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Perry v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 572 (2010) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings; evidentiary admissibility under Fourth Amendment)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruit of the poisonous tree; attenuation doctrine)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006) (exclusionary rule not automatic; attenuation/independence of taint)
- Karo, United States v., 468 U.S. 705 (1984) (GPS/beeper tracking not a Fourth Amendment intrusion where no private information exposed)
- Knotts, United States v., 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (movement of a vehicle on public streets; no reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Maynard, United States v., 615 F.3d 544 (2010) (GPS tracking of personal vehicle; privacy expectations)