State of Minnesota v. Joshua Dwight Liebl
2016 Minn. App. LEXIS 71
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Conservation officers obtained a statutorily authorized ex parte "tracking order" under Minn. Stat. § 626A.37 to install and monitor a GPS device on Joshua Liebl’s truck to investigate suspected hunting offenses.
- The tracking-order application described citizen reports, physical evidence (blood, hair, antlers, drag marks), and Liebl’s revoked hunting privileges; the order authorized covert installation and monitoring but did not reflect a contemporaneous judicial finding of probable cause.
- Officers covertly installed the GPS device on October 8, 2014, monitored the truck daily, and used location data to identify suspicious nighttime stops on gravel roads.
- Using GPS-derived information, officers secured search warrants on October 21, executed searches of Liebl’s home and truck, and found deer carcasses and numerous antlers; Liebl was charged with multiple game-law offenses.
- The district court suppressed the evidence and dismissed charges, holding the warrantless GPS tracking violated the Fourth Amendment and that the federal good-faith exception did not apply; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Liebl) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether covert installation and monitoring of a GPS device on a vehicle is a "search" requiring a warrant | The tracking order (issued under Minn. Stat. § 626A.37) was legally equivalent to a warrant; compliance with statutory tracking procedures made the search reasonable | Warrantless GPS installation and monitoring was a Fourth Amendment search and unreasonable without a probable-cause-based warrant | GPS installation/monitoring is a search; here it was unreasonable because the tracking order lacked a contemporaneous probable-cause finding |
| Whether the statutory tracking order can substitute for a Fourth Amendment warrant | The State: judicial authorization under the statute sufficed even if labeled differently | Liebl: statutory order lacked the required probable-cause finding and cannot substitute for a warrant | Rejected: the tracking order was not a functional equivalent of a warrant where the issuing court made no probable-cause finding |
| Whether evidence must be suppressed when obtained from post-Jones warrantless GPS tracking | The State: officers reasonably relied on the tracking order and prevailing statutory practice; apply the good-faith exception | Liebl: post-Jones case law made warrant requirement clear, so reliance was not objectively reasonable | Good-faith exception does not apply; reliance was not objectively reasonable after Jones |
| Whether Minn. Stat. § 626A.42 independently required suppression | The State: statute not applicable as interpreted by district court | Liebl: statute bars obtaining location info without a tracking warrant and mandates suppression | Court did not decide § 626A.42 issue because Fourth Amendment violation alone required suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (installation and use of GPS on vehicle constitutes a Fourth Amendment search)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable absent specific exception)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule requires objectively reasonable officer reliance)
- United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965) (warrants may issue only upon a judicial finding of probable cause)
- Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S. Ct. 1235 (2012) (magistrate must determine probable cause before issuing warrant)
- United States v. Faulkner, 826 F.3d 1139 (8th Cir. 2016) (placement of GPS device on vehicle requires probable cause and a warrant)
- United States v. Taylor, 776 F.3d 513 (7th Cir. 2015) (discussing limits of good-faith reliance for pre- and post-Jones GPS use)
- United States v. Barraza-Maldonado, 732 F.3d 865 (8th Cir. 2013) (good-faith exception requires strict compliance with controlling precedent)