State v. Allen
2013 Ohio 4188
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- From July–Oct 2010 a series of weekday residential burglaries occurred; a Lyndhurst resident reported seeing a tall, thin Black male in an SUV with Ohio plate DZU 1675 near one targeted home.
- Police traced the plate to a vehicle registered to the suspect’s wife at a Willoughby apartment complex and conducted surveillance.
- On October 4, 2010 Detective Fiore covertly attached a magnetic GPS device to the vehicle’s undercarriage and tracked its movements for several days across municipal boundaries.
- Tracking placed the vehicle near burglarized homes in Maple Heights; officers stopped the car, observed electronics in plain view, arrested Allen, towed the vehicle, and later executed warrants for home/vehicle searches that recovered items with matching serial numbers.
- Allen was indicted in Cuyahoga County; he moved to suppress evidence obtained via the warrantless GPS attachment. The trial court granted suppression; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence from a warrantless GPS attachment and tracking must be suppressed under Jones | State: Jones applies but suppression unnecessary because Davis good-faith exception should admit evidence where officers reasonably relied on existing (non-binding) precedent and acted in good faith | Allen: Warrantless attachment violated Fourth Amendment under Jones; suppression is the proper remedy because no binding precedent in Ohio authorized the conduct | Court: Affirmed suppression — Davis good-faith exception does not apply where no binding precedent in the jurisdiction existed before Jones |
| Whether non-binding out-of-jurisdiction authority can trigger the Davis good-faith exception | State: Non-binding persuasive authority from other jurisdictions (and some federal circuits) justified officers’ actions and supports applying Davis | Allen: Reliance on non-binding foreign authority insufficient; only binding local appellate or Supreme Court precedent could justify good-faith reliance | Court: Rejected broad reading of Davis; refused to shelter reliance on non-binding authority in an unsettled legal landscape |
| Whether officers acted with such negligence that exclusion would not deter future violations | State: Officers inquired of county prosecutors and acted without deliberate/reckless disregard; suppression imposes heavy social costs | Allen: Officers crossed jurisdictions at night and clandestinely attached the device — conduct that undermines good-faith claim | Court: Did not need to decide recklessness; even accepting good-faith factual assertions, absence of binding precedent controls and suppression is required |
| Whether prior Ohio decisions available at the time would have made a motion to suppress futile | State: There was persuasive out-of-state authority supporting GPS tracking | Allen: No binding Ohio or Sixth Circuit authority existed pre-Jones; thus motion to suppress was not futile | Court: Agreed with Allen; no binding precedent in Ohio existed prior to Jones, so suppression precluded use of Davis exception |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (attachment of GPS to vehicle constitutes a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant)
- Davis v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2419 (good-faith exception applies when officers reasonably rely on binding judicial precedent)
- State v. Johnson, 964 N.E.2d 426 (Ohio Supreme Court remand to apply Jones)
- State v. White, 969 N.E.2d 243 (Ohio Supreme Court remand to apply Jones)
- State v. Jefferson, 969 N.E.2d 250 (Ohio Supreme Court remand to apply Jones)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (exclusionary rule and deterrence rationale)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (limits on exclusionary rule when negligence is isolated)