2018 COA 5
Colo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Victim J.P. called 911 reporting an intruder; officers stopped a white Ford Explorer about ten minutes later; Brandon Campbell was the sole occupant and was wearing an ankle GPS monitor.
- Officers performed a weapons-drawn, hands-on felony stop, handcuffed Campbell, discovered an outstanding warrant during a pat-down, and placed him in a police car.
- Detective requested GPS location records from the private monitoring company (Interstate Monitoring); the company voluntarily provided ~9,643 five-minute tracking events covering over a month, which placed Campbell at three burglary scenes including J.P.’s home.
- Campbell was charged and convicted of multiple burglaries and criminal mischief; he moved to suppress: (1) evidence from the stop/search; (2) GPS data from the ankle monitor; (3) admission of GPS evidence without a Shreck hearing; and (4) J.P.’s in-court ID as tainted by a suggestive show-up.
- The trial court denied all suppression motions; on appeal the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Campbell’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of stop/arrest and search of person | Stop justified by observed traffic violations and probable cause for vehicular eluding; search incident to arrest lawful | Officers’ use of handcuffs/firearms turned detention into an arrest lacking probable cause; alternatively detention lacked reasonable suspicion | Affirmed: stop lawful based on traffic violations; probable cause for vehicular eluding supported arrest and search incident to arrest |
| Suppression of GPS data from ankle monitor | No reasonable expectation of privacy because records were voluntarily disclosed to third-party monitoring company (bondsman/monitor) | Had subjective expectation that GPS data would remain private and used only for bond supervision | Affirmed: no reasonable expectation of privacy under U.S. or Colorado Constitution; third-party disclosure defeats Fourth Amendment claim |
| Need for pretrial Shreck hearing on GPS reliability | GPS is reliable and not novel; court had sufficient information; expert testimony and cross-examination address reliability | GPS technology/monitor accuracy were novel and required a Shreck admissibility hearing | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion denying Shreck hearing; GPS evidence admissible and any reliability disputes go to weight, not admissibility |
| Suppression of show-up identification | Although show-up was suggestive, identification was reliable under Bernal factors (opportunity, attention, certainty, short delay) | One-on-one show-up was unduly suggestive and required suppression of in-court ID | Affirmed: show-up was suggestive but identification reliable under totality of circumstances; not a substantial likelihood of misidentification |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (established two-prong reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test)
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (third-party doctrine: no privacy in information voluntarily given to third parties)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (telephone-number dialed subject to third-party doctrine)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (GPS surveillance implicates prolonged tracking privacy concerns)
- People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 68 (Colo. 2001) (framework for admissibility of scientific/expert evidence under CRE 702)
- Charnes v. DiGiacomo, 200 Colo. 94 (612 P.2d 1117) (Colorado Constitution may provide broader privacy protections than federal law)
- Bernal v. People, 44 P.3d 184 (Colo. 2002) (two-step test for evaluating suggestive identification and reliability factors)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (traffic stops reasonable based on observed traffic violations)