People v. Rodriguez
F070900
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 19, 2017Background
- Domingo Rodriguez III, a felon, was released from Kern County custody on an Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP) with an ankle GPS monitor and a condition he not leave Kern County without permission.
- The ankle monitor transmitted GPS points (stored every 3 minutes, uploaded every 15) to AMS/Insight servers; deputies accessed reports and case notes through web software.
- GPS data and EMP office logs showed Rodriguez left Kern County and traveled to other states on multiple dates; deputies contacted him, and he claimed (falsely) a deputy had given permission and said he was a long-haul truck driver.
- The EMP office issued a warrant after the monitor ceased transmitting (battery) and the last signal was from Texas. Rodriguez was tried for escape (Pen. Code § 4532(b)(1)) based on being outside Kern County on December 28, 2012 (Monrovia).
- The principal evidentiary dispute was admissibility/authentication/hearsay status of the computer-generated GPS report and related testimony; the trial court admitted the full GPS report.
- Jury convicted Rodriguez of escape; the Court of Appeal affirmed, addressing authentication and hearsay of GPS data and admission of GPS data from other dates.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Rodriguez’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authentication of GPS report | Sergeant Kessler’s testimony about system operation and his use of the report sufficed to authenticate under Evidence Code §1552 and case law allowing non-expert witnesses to authenticate automated records | GPS report required testimony from AMS custodian/expert because the report was produced by third‑party servers and could be manipulated | Court: No abuse of discretion — Kessler’s testimony was sufficient to authenticate; defendant introduced no evidence undermining reliability, so §1552 presumption stood |
| Hearsay status of GPS data | GPS data are computer‑generated (machine output), not statements by persons, thus not hearsay; reliability concerns go to weight/authentication, not hearsay exclusion | GPS report is hearsay (and potentially testimonial) because it reports facts and was produced for prosecution; deputies’ ability to add notes makes it subject to human intervention | Court: GPS report was not hearsay (machine‑generated output); not testimonial; admissible after authentication |
| Identification linking monitor/serial to defendant | GPS report tied to device serial number; prosecution could authenticate via custodian or deputy who attached monitor | Testimony about serial/report identification is hearsay if not established by AMS custodian | Court: Issue waived by defense (no objection at trial); stipulation and available deputy testimony would have cured any foundation problem |
| Admission of GPS data from dates other than charged date | People: other-date data show intent/motive and pattern, relevant to intent and willfulness | Rodriguez: other-date evidence is impermissible propensity evidence under §1101 and unduly prejudicial under §352; trial should have been limited to December 28 | Court: Defendant preserved initial objection but did not request limiting instruction or object to argument; other-date evidence admissible for non‑character purposes (motive/intent), §352 not violated; unanimity instruction given as safeguard |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Goldsmith, 59 Cal.4th 258 (2014) (standard of review for authentication and admissibility of automated evidence)
- People v. Hawkins, 98 Cal.App.4th 1428 (2002) (distinguishes computer‑generated output from human‑entered records; admissibility depends on whether machine was operating properly)
- People v. Dawkins, 230 Cal.App.4th 991 (2014) (officer testimony sufficient to authenticate automated recordings)
- People v. Martinez, 22 Cal.4th 106 (2000) (authentication/foundation principles for automated evidence)
- People v. Lugashi, 205 Cal.App.3d 632 (1988) (non‑expert/system user can qualify to authenticate computer records)
- People v. Nazary, 191 Cal.App.4th 727 (2010) (computer‑generated receipts and similar machine outputs are not hearsay)
- United States v. Lizarraga‑Tirado, 789 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2015) (Google Earth/GPS images and automatic program labels are not hearsay)
- United States v. Espinal‑Almeida, 699 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2012) (expert testimony not required to authenticate GPS/software evidence where a knowledgeable user testifies)