State v. Allen
2013 Ohio 434
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant Brian C. Allen, Jr. challenges his conviction as deprived of effective assistance of trial counsel for not filing a suppression motion.
- From Aug 2010 a spree of burglaries occurred in western Lake County and eastern Cuyahoga County, with police sharing information.
- Lyndhurst police attached a GPS tracker to a car linked to Allen’s wife and tracked it for two days without a warrant.
- Detectives used GPS data to place Allen under surveillance, leading to arrests and warrants for the car and Allen’s residence.
- Items from burglaries were found in the car and apartment; Allen was indicted in March 2011 and tried in Aug 2011, resulting in mixed verdicts and a 13-year sentence plus post-release control.
- On appeal, the court reverses and remands, holding the GPS evidence suppression issue requires vindication; trial counsel must file a suppression motion on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was trial counsel deficient for not filing a suppression motion? | Allen asserts counsel's failure prejudiced outcome. | Allen argues GPS evidence should have been suppressed. | Yes; ineffective assistance established. |
| Did GPS tracking constitute a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant? | As of March 2011, no binding precedent barred warrantless GPS use. | GPS use should be treated as a search requiring a warrant. | The issue requires suppression; Jones later held GPS tracking is a search. |
| Are good-faith or inevitable-discovery exceptions applicable to exclude suppression? | Police acted in good faith; evidence would be admissible under inevitable discovery. | Neither exception applies given lack of binding authority. | Both exceptions do not apply; suppression warranted. |
| Would the outcome have differed if suppression were sought? | Suppression would have altered trial evidence and result. | Evidence would still be admissible if discovered inevitably or through other means. | Yes; reasonable probability of different result; reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (GPS tracking constitutes a Fourth Amendment search; warrant required)
- United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (GPS tracking may be a search)
- United States v. Marquez, 605 F.3d 604 (8th Cir. 2010) (GPS tracking not a search)
- United States v. Pineda-Moreno, 591 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2010) (GPS tracking context varies; search considerations discussed)
- State v. Johnson, 190 Ohio App.3d 750 (2010) (GPS as non-search issue in Ohio appellate court)