State v. Earls
22 A.3d 114
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2011Background
- Defendant Thomas W. Earls was charged with burglary, theft of movable property, receiving stolen property, and possession of marijuana in a New Jersey case.
- Police investigated burglaries; a phone belonging to a burglary victim was in use, leading to a data warrant monitoring calls and identifying a possessor who implicated Earls.
- Gates, who leased a storage unit with Earls, cooperated after being shown stolen items; police obtained consent to search the unit.
- Police located Earls via cell-site data from his cell phone provider (T-Mobile) indicating general locations, ultimately confirming his presence at a motel where he was arrested.
- Officers arrested Earls in a motel room after learning his room number from Gates, and recovered additional stolen property; Earls consented to searches of luggage later, and a dresser drawer search yielded jewelry.
- The trial court ruled Gates had authority to consent to the storage-unit search; it also ruled Earls had no general privacy interest in cell-site information, but allowed the arrest as justified. The suppression ruling covered limited evidentiary issues; Earls pleaded guilty to burglary and theft under a plea agreement, with a multi-year sentence and parole ineligibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gates had authority to consent to the storage-unit search | Earls | Earls | Gates had actual authority; storage unit validly searched. |
| Whether monitoring cell-site data without a warrant violated Fourth Amendment or NJ Constitution | State | Earls | No expectation of privacy in general location on public roadways; arrest upheld. |
| Whether the TV and luggage seized in the motel room were admissible under plain view | State | Earls | Plain view satisfied; seizures upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (vehicle tracking on public roads not a Fourth Amendment violation; beeper exception)
- United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) (beeper tracking in private residence requires warrant for ongoing monitoring)
- Forest v. United States, 355 F.3d 942 (6th Cir. 2004) (cell-site location data not Fourth Amendment violation when movements are on public roads)
- Devega v. State, 689 S.E.2d 293 (Ga. 2010) (cell-site data akin to Knotts; no suppression for location monitoring)
- State v. Suazo, 133 N.J. 315 (1993) (common authority standard for third-party consent under NJ Constitution)
- United States v. Kim, 105 F.3d 1579 (9th Cir. 1997) (lessee authority to consent to storage-unit search)