State v. Mitchell, 323 P.3d 69

Background

Police suspected Mitchell of drug trafficking after informants reported purchases and surveillance showed him driving a Kia Sportage owned by C.W.
Without a warrant and without C.W.’s knowledge, a deputy surreptitiously attached a GPS tracker to the Kia’s undercarriage on May 5 and periodically removed/replaced it; it transmitted location data through May 30.
On May 30 GPS alerts led deputies to intercept the Kia at Mitchell’s residence; Mitchell and the owner refused consent to search, a drug dog alerted, and officers found methamphetamine and marijuana in the vehicle.
Mitchell was indicted and moved to suppress evidence, arguing the warrantless GPS installation and tracking were an unconstitutional search; the trial court denied suppression for lack of standing and reliance on pre-Jones precedent.
After the Supreme Court decided Jones, Mitchell renewed suppression; the trial court again denied, and a jury convicted him on drug and paraphernalia counts.
On appeal the Arizona Court of Appeals held Mitchell had standing, the GPS placement/use was an unlawful Fourth Amendment search under Jones, and the exclusionary rule applied to suppress the fruits of the search; convictions were reversed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mitchell)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Standing to challenge GPS trespass	Mitchell argued he had standing because he lawfully possessed the Kia on the day of interception and was the target of surveillance, and the GPS constituted a continuing trespass	State argued Mitchell lacked standing because he did not possess or own the car when the device was installed; only the owner could challenge installation	Court held Mitchell had standing because lawful possession during the device’s continued presence created a continuing trespass and conferred standing
Whether GPS installation/use was a Fourth Amendment search	Mitchell argued Jones made warrantless installation and monitoring a search because it was a physical trespass onto an effect used to obtain information	State conceded a trespass occurred but relied on Knotts/Karo and pre-Jones precedent to argue no search or no violation	Court held Jones controls: the physical intrusion and use of the GPS to obtain location data was a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant
Application of exclusionary rule / good-faith exception	Mitchell argued exclusionary rule applies and evidence is fruit of unlawful search	State invoked Davis good-faith exception, claiming reliance on existing appellate precedent (e.g., Ninth Circuit decisions, Knotts/Cramer) justified warrantless action	Court rejected good-faith claim: no binding Arizona or Supreme Court authority authorized trespassory GPS placement; exclusionary rule applies and evidence was fruit of the unlawful search
Necessity of warrant prior to attaching GPS	Mitchell contended warrant or owner consent was required before intruding on vehicle	State argued precedent permitted similar surveillance or was at least unsettled	Court held warrant required absent owner consent; officers should have sought judicial authorization before affixing tracker

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (U.S. 2012) (installation and use of GPS on a vehicle is a Fourth Amendment search under a trespass theory)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test for Fourth Amendment searches)
United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (U.S. 1983) (use of a beeper to track movements considered under different facts; did not address physical-trespass GPS placement)
Karo v. United States, 468 U.S. 705 (U.S. 1984) (tracking device placed with owner consent; distinguished from nonconsensual trespass)
Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (U.S. 2011) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule when officers reasonably rely on binding precedent)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963) (exclusionary rule bars admission of evidence that is fruit of unlawful search)