State v. White
2013 Ohio 5221
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Police investigating a series of home invasions traced a white Honda Civic registered to David L. White and began intermittent visual surveillance.
- Because continuous visual surveillance was infeasible, Franklin County officers installed a magnet-mounted GPS unit underneath the car without a warrant and monitored its location data periodically.
- GPS monitoring showed the vehicle driving slowly and circling neighborhoods where recent home invasions occurred; that information prompted contact with Fairfield County authorities.
- A search warrant for White’s residence and vehicle was obtained and executed; officers recovered property linked to robberies, and White was indicted and later pleaded no contest to several offenses.
- After initial denial, the trial court ultimately suppressed the GPS data as the fruit of an unlawful search; the State appealed.
- The Fifth District affirmed suppression, holding the warrantless, prolonged installation and use of the GPS device amounted to an unlawful search that violated reasonable expectations of privacy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless installation/use of GPS on vehicle is a Fourth Amendment search | State: even if a search, officers acted in good faith; suppression unnecessary and would unduly deter police | White: installation and prolonged monitoring without a warrant violated reasonable expectation of privacy | Court: Installation and prolonged warrantless monitoring is a search and violated privacy; suppression appropriate |
| Whether exclusionary rule should be applied | State: evidence should not be excluded because officers acted objectively reasonably and suppression would not deter | White: suppression required to remedy the constitutional violation | Court: exclusion applied; suppression upheld (deterrence and Jones precedent control) |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (Fourth Amendment protects people’s reasonable expectations of privacy)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (installation and use of GPS to monitor vehicle movements is a search)
- United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (prolonged GPS monitoring defeats reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (standards for probable cause and informant-based warrants)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (exclusionary rule’s deterrence rationale governs suppression analysis)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (technology-aided surveillance of intimate details in the home constitutes a search)