People v. Rodriguez
16 Cal. App. 5th 355
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- Domingo Rodriguez III was released from Kern County custody on an Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP) ankle monitor (serial NF0002048) and told he could not leave Kern County without permission; initial seven‑day home confinement applied.
- The ankle monitor generated GPS location points (every 3 minutes; transmitted every 15 minutes) recorded on AMS/Insight servers and producible as a printed GPS report showing dates/addresses from Dec 12, 2012 to Jan 18, 2013.
- Deputies monitored the data via the Insight software; deputies could add notes/schedules to an inmate’s electronic file but could not alter the raw GPS latitude/longitude points.
- GPS reports showed Rodriguez left Kern County repeatedly (including Monrovia on Dec 28, 2012 and McGregor, Texas on Jan 18, 2013); deputies contacted Rodriguez by phone and he admitted travel tied to trucking work and claimed (unverified) permission.
- The EMP office issued a warrant for escape in violation of Penal Code §4532(b)(1) based on the Dec 28, 2012 Monrovia incident; Rodriguez was tried, convicted, and sentenced (8 months for the escape count within an aggregate term).
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Rodriguez’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authentication of GPS report | Sergeant Kessler’s testimony about how the device, transmission, servers, and reporting work sufficed to authenticate the printed report under Evid. Code §1552 and common practice. | Kessler lacked intimate knowledge of AMS servers/software; only the AMS custodian/expert could properly authenticate the computer‑generated report. | Court: No abuse of discretion; Kessler’s training/experience and testimony provided sufficient foundation and §1552 presumption stood absent defense proof of unreliability. |
| Hearsay status of GPS data | GPS points are automatically generated by a machine and thus are not hearsay (not statements of a person); admissibility rests on reliability/authentication, not hearsay exceptions. | GPS report is hearsay and must satisfy business/official records hearsay exceptions; it is susceptible to manipulation via deputies’ edits. | Court: GPS report is not hearsay—it is computer‑generated data, not a human statement; deputies could not change raw GPS points. |
| Testimonial hearsay / Crawford/Melendez‑Diaz issue | Data were created for EMP administration, not for prosecution, so not testimonial; admission does not implicate confrontation right. | The printed GPS report was produced to prosecute Rodriguez and thus is testimonial; confrontation principles apply. | Court: Not testimonial—created to administer EMP, and hearsay analysis already foreclosed the testimonial label. |
| Admission of GPS entries for other dates (uncharged trips) | Such entries are relevant to show pattern/verification of device reliability and context for charged incident. | Introduction of other‑date travel was propensity evidence and prejudicial. | Court (nonpublished portion): Overruled objection; admission of other‑date GPS evidence addressed separately (not reversible error as to published holding). |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Goldsmith, 59 Cal.4th 258 (court upheld authentication of automated digital evidence; admission turns on reliability and foundational testimony)
- People v. Hawkins, 98 Cal.App.4th 1428 (distinguishes computer‑generated vs. computer‑stored information; computer‑generated output is not hearsay)
- People v. Lugashi, 205 Cal.App.3d 632 (non‑technical witness with system knowledge can authenticate computer records)
- People v. Dawkins, 230 Cal.App.4th 991 (law enforcement testimony sufficient to authenticate computer‑generated audio/location data)
- United States v. Lizarraga‑Tirado, 789 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir.: Google Earth/GPS‑derived images and program‑placed map tags not hearsay)
- State v. Kandutsch, 336 Wis.2d 478 (Wis. 2011) (automatic electronic monitoring device report held not hearsay; admissibility rests on system reliability)
- Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (addresses testimonial vs. non‑testimonial forensic reports; relevant to confrontation argument)