State v. Winningham, 2011 Ohio 6229

Informant alleged Winningham traveled to Chicago to obtain marijuana for distribution and returned to Cincinnati; officers observed pattern of inactivity at work, brief stops, and residence with a person with a drug history suggesting trafficking.
Officers obtained a GPS tracker warrant on June 23, 2010 and attached it to Winningham’s truck, monitoring movements with a fence alert for departures from a specified loop.
First warrant expired after 30 days without supporting information; a second warrant was obtained on July 23, 2010 based on the same information.
GPS alert on July 30, 2010 showed Winningham’s truck left the loop and traveled to Chicago, remaining there for several hours before returning and being stopped in Ohio; a drug-sniffing dog indicated drugs in the vehicle.
Police stopped and eventually arrested Winningham; they recovered a large quantity of marijuana from the truck bed.
Winningham moved to suppress the marijuana evidence as a Fourth Amendment violation; the trial court denied the motion and found him guilty; on appeal he contends the warrants were improper and the information stale.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the GPS tracking of a vehicle requires a warrant	Winningham contends the GPS warrants were improper	State argues no warrant was necessary to use GPS on a vehicle’s exterior and travel on public roads	GPS use did not implicate the Fourth Amendment; no warrant was necessary

State v. Buzzard, 112 Ohio St.3d 451 (2007-Ohio-373) ( Fourth Amendment privacy expectations in public-viewable areas; vehicle exterior not private)
United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (tracking a beeper on a car does not constitute a search on public roads)
California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) (public exposure reduces reasonable privacy expectations)
New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (1986) (vehicle is on public routes; limited privacy in movements)
United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (discusses invasive tracking; cert. granted in Jones)
United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) (automobile exception to search warrant when probable cause exists)
State v. Lopez, 166 Ohio App.3d 337 (2006-Ohio-2091) (validates automobile exception and probable cause for search)
Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964) (probable cause supports vehicle search under automobile exception)
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) (reasonable suspicion standard for roadside detentions)
State v. Stallings, 2003-Ohio-6918 (Ohio Ct. App.) (probable cause and search of vehicle)
State v. Lopez, 166 Ohio App.3d 337 (2006-Ohio-2091) (detention and search framework in vehicle contexts)
Buzzard v. State, 112 Ohio St.3d 451 (2007-Ohio-373) (privacy expectations and public exposure standard)