State v. Jones
2017 S.D. LEXIS 115
| S.D. | 2017Background
- Police received a tip that a known dealer (Brady Schutt) traveled to Joseph Jones’s trailer to pick up large quantities of marijuana; Detective Rogers confirmed the tip and Jones’s address.
- That same day (Jan 23, 2015) a city employee installed a pole camera in a streetlight box across from Jones’s trailer; no warrant was obtained. The camera recorded activity outside the trailer (day and night) from Jan 23 to Mar 19, 2015; recordings were streamed to DCI and to Rogers’s phone, but were not retained by the State.
- Detective Rogers used the camera feed to observe visitors, vehicles (including the red GMC), and instances of Jones removing bags that were later searched in a dumpster, producing items linking Jones to marijuana.
- Using information from the camera, Rogers obtained warrants for GPS tracking devices and later for a residential search; the search was executed Mar 19, 2015, and Jones was arrested and charged with drug offenses.
- Jones moved to suppress evidence, arguing the warrantless, two-month targeted pole-camera surveillance of his residence violated the Fourth Amendment; the circuit court denied suppression, finding no Fourth Amendment violation or, alternatively, that officers acted in good faith. Jones appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Jones's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether long-term, warrantless pole-camera surveillance of activity outside a home is a Fourth Amendment search | Targeted, continuous 24/7 surveillance of comings/goings and visitors aggregates intimate details and is as intrusive as GPS tracking; Jones had a subjective expectation in the aggregate of his movements | The camera only recorded what any passerby could see from a public vantage point; technological augmentation of vision does not create a search; no expectation of privacy for exposed activity | The court held the two-month warrantless pole-camera surveillance constituted a Fourth Amendment search because society would recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy in aggregated, long-term monitoring; warrant required (decision reversed as to legality) |
| Whether the subjective-expectation prong is satisfied by lack of physical concealment | Jones argued he legitimately expected privacy against 24/7 targeted aggregation of movements even if individual acts were public | State argued Jones made no showing he subjectively believed his front-yard activities were concealed | Court found Jones had a subjective expectation in the aggregate of his movements (not limited to each discrete act) |
| Whether that subjective expectation is objectively reasonable | Jones: aggregated long-term remote surveillance reveals intimate patterns and thus is objectively unreasonable without judicial oversight | State: public exposure defeats objective reasonableness; police could have done the same by in-person surveillance | Court found the expectation reasonable given the scope, duration, and remote/continuous capabilities of the pole camera; society would recognize it |
| Whether suppression is required or the good-faith exception applies | Jones: exclusion required; State did not argue good faith at hearing and circuit court indicated suppression if warrantless | State: even if search, officers acted in objectively reasonable good faith (no controlling precedent requiring warrant) | Court applied the good-faith exception and affirmed denial of suppression as to evidentiary use (circuit court’s denial of motion to suppress affirmed in part on good-faith grounds) |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (establishes the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (addresses trespass and raises concerns about long-term, electronic surveillance)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (search where government uses sense-enhancing device not in general public use to explore details of the home)
- California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (observation of a home from a public vantage point is not a search)
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (police may augment senses with technology; monitoring public movements not necessarily a search)
- State v. Zahn, 812 N.W.2d 490 (S.D. 2012) (state GPS-tracking precedent; discussed aggregation and surveillance)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
- State v. Vogel, 428 N.W.2d 272 (S.D. 1988) (use of zoom-lens aerial observation upheld)