State v. Sullivan, 2011 Ohio 4967

In Jan. 2010, Franklin County law enforcement investigated a series of home invasion robberies with similarities: firearms used, multiple counties, similar time frame, and victims/witnesses describing two African-American males in a white car.
An AAA tow service identified a stolen white Honda Civic involved in the crimes; the vehicle later turned up as registered to Sullivan.
Corporal Minerd used a database of associates to link Sullivan to an address in Columbus and obtained a cell-phone location warrant to track Sullivan.
From Jan. 11–14, 2010, detectives monitored the white Honda Civic; no criminal activity was observed during three days of surveillance.
On Jan. 14, 2010, Minerd had an undercover officer place a GPS unit under the Civic’s bumper without a warrant; the unit provided real-time tracking data.
By Jan. 23, 2010, tracking tied the Civic to a Bickel Church Road home invasion; property taken in that robbery was recovered from the Civic, Sullivan and co-defendant White were arrested, and Sullivan was indicted on multiple counts including aggravated burglary and improper discharge of firearm.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether GPS tracking without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment	Sullivan: warrantless placement and monitoring infringe privacy	Sullivan: no valid exigent circumstances; placement/monitoring require warrant	GPS warrant required; suppression sustained
Whether consecutive sentences were improper given the first issue	Sullivan: assignment ripe for review	State: issue premature	Consecutive-sentence issue deemed not ripe; remand consistent with opinion

State v. Johnson, 190 Ohio App.3d 750, 944 N.E.2d 270, 2010-Ohio-5808 (Ohio App.3d 2010) (GPS tracking on external vehicle discussed; relevance to Fourth Amendment)
United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (U.S. 1983) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in automobile movements on public roads; limited surveillance later questioned)
United States v. Bailey, 628 F.2d 938 (6th Cir. 1980) (GPS surveillance categories; monitoring may or may not violate privacy depending on expectations)
Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) (exemplary Fourth Amendment principles; exclusion rationale for unlawful searches)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (U.S. 2001) (privacy in technological surveillance; warrant required for intrusions)
Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1967) (limitations on surveillance methods; probative of probable cause and warrants)
Karo v. United States, 468 U.S. 705 (U.S. 1984) (context on warrants and electronic surveillance; neutral magistrate necessity)
U.S. v. Michael, 622 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1980) (GPS tracking with indefinite surveillance discussed)
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1965) (privacy rights foundational)
Osborn v. United States, 385 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1966) (privacy and surveillance concerns noted by concurring opinions)