State v. Johnson (Slip Opinion), 141 Ohio St. 3d 136

Background

In October 2008 Detective Mike Hackney attached a battery-powered GPS tracker to the undercarriage of Sudinia Johnson’s parked van without a warrant and monitored its movements in real time.
The GPS led officers to Illinois, visual confirmation and surveillance followed, and a traffic stop ultimately produced keys that opened a compartment containing 7 kg of cocaine found in a co-defendant’s car.
Johnson moved to suppress evidence, arguing the warrantless attachment and monitoring of the GPS device violated the Fourth Amendment. Trial court initially denied suppression; on appeal this court remanded after the Supreme Court decided Jones.
On remand the trial court found the attachment was a Fourth Amendment search under Jones but declined to suppress under the good-faith exception; the Twelfth District affirmed.
The Ohio Supreme Court considered whether the good-faith exception bars suppression when officers relied on pre-Jones precedent (Knotts/Karo) and other law‑enforcement advice that installing a GPS did not require a warrant.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether warrantless attachment and monitoring of a GPS on a vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment	Warrantless placement was unconstitutional; officers cannot rely on nonbinding practice/advice to avoid suppression	At the time no court had held a warrant was required; officers reasonably relied on binding precedent and guidance	The attachment was a search under Jones, but suppression is barred by the good‑faith exception because officers reasonably relied on existing precedent and advice
Whether the good‑faith exception applies when reliance was on prevailing law‑enforcement practice and advice from a prosecutor	Good‑faith should not apply to reliance on informal advice or nonbinding local authority	Good‑faith applies where officers objectively reasonably relied on binding appellate precedent (Knotts/Karo) and law‑enforcement guidance	Good‑faith exception applies: officer acted in objectively reasonable good faith in 2008
Whether reliance on earlier beeper/tracking cases (Knotts/Karo) was objectively reasonable despite different technology	Technology difference and absence of local controlling precedent make reliance unreasonable	Pre‑Jones beeper/tracking cases provided binding authority and reasonable basis to believe no warrant needed	Reliance was objectively reasonable because Knotts and Karo (and circuit decisions) supported the practice pre‑Jones
Whether suppression would produce appreciable deterrence of Fourth Amendment violations	Suppression is needed to vindicate rights and deter future warrantless intrusions	Suppression would not appreciably deter because the officer’s conduct was nonculpable and reasonable	Exclusionary rule would not yield appreciable deterrence; therefore evidence admitted under good‑faith exception

Key Cases Cited

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (established reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test)
United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in movements on public roads)
United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) (beeper placement not a search where object was government property; monitoring inside private premises implicates Fourth Amendment)
Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) (announced exclusionary rule)
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (applied exclusionary rule to the states)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule when officers rely on defective warrant)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (exclusionary rule does not apply when officers act in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent)
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (attachment of GPS to a vehicle is a Fourth Amendment search via trespass/physical intrusion)