407 P.3d 524
Ariz.2018Background
- DPS officers installed a warrantless GPS tracker on a commercial tractor‑trailer in Feb. 2010 after license-plate checks suggested the trailer was stolen and officers suspected drug trafficking; DEA and DPS then monitored the truck’s movements for ~31 hours over three days.
- The monitored truck was driven by owner Velez‑Colon with passenger/co‑driver Emilio Jean riding and sometimes driving; officers did not know Jean was a passenger when they installed the device.
- GPS data assisted officers in stopping the truck; a K‑9 alerted and a search of the trailer revealed ~2,140 pounds of marijuana.
- Jean moved to suppress evidence, arguing the warrantless GPS installation/monitoring violated the Fourth Amendment (and Arizona Constitution); the trial court denied suppression and Jean was convicted.
- The court of appeals affirmed; the Arizona Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the GPS monitoring was a Fourth Amendment search and, if so, whether suppression was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jean) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless placement/use of GPS on the truck constituted a Fourth Amendment search under trespass theory | GPS installation/monitoring was a search; Jean’s rights were violated | Jean lacked possessory interest/standing to assert a trespass claim because he did not own or possess the truck | Jones trespass theory allows owner/bailee to challenge; Jean lacked possessory interest for trespass, so trespass theory does not help him |
| Whether GPS monitoring constituted a search under Katz reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test | Continuous, nonconsensual GPS tracking of vehicular movements invades a reasonable privacy expectation of passengers | Knotts and Rakas mean no reasonable expectation in movements on public roads; passenger lacks privacy interest | Court: Katz analysis applies; passenger traveling with owner generally has reasonable expectation against surreptitious GPS tracking, so this monitoring was a Fourth Amendment search as to Jean |
| Whether duration/location (short-term, public roads, commercial truck) defeats a Katz search claim | Short surveillance still intrudes; technological capacity to exhaustively record movements makes it a search regardless of brief duration | Short-term monitoring on public roads is like Knotts; limited intrusion and visibility make it not a search | Court: duration/public-road factors do not automatically defeat a Katz claim; short-term monitoring can still be a search — here it was sufficient to implicate privacy interests |
| Whether the exclusionary rule requires suppression of evidence obtained via pre-Jones GPS tracking | Evidence should be suppressed because warrantless GPS violated rights | Exclusionary rule should not apply because officers reasonably relied on existing precedent (Knotts/Karo); apply Davis good-faith exception | Court: good-faith exception applies; officers reasonably relied on Knotts/Karo, so suppression not required |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (installation/use of GPS on vehicle can be a Fourth Amendment search via trespass and preserves Katz analysis)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (Fourth Amendment protects reasonable expectations of privacy)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (Fourth Amendment rights are personal; standing requires invasion of defendant’s own protected interest)
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in movements on public thoroughfares)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (exclusionary rule does not apply to searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding precedent)
- United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) (electronic monitoring that reveals interior or private activity can violate reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (use of technology not in general public use to reveal details of a home constitutes a search)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (modern digital devices can reveal highly private information; searches of such devices raise heightened Fourth Amendment concerns)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (exclusionary rule’s deterrence rationale; suppression requires sufficiently culpable police conduct)