United States v. Aguiar
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24803
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- In Jan 2009 a DEA agent attached a GPS tracker to Stephen Aguiar’s Subaru without a warrant; GPS data was collected continuously through Aguiar’s July 30, 2009 arrest.
- GPS data helped identify additional suspects, supported pen‑register/trap‑and‑trace and wiretap applications, and produced maps, surveillance photos, and testimony used at trial.
- Appellants (Aguiar, Whitcomb, Murray) moved to suppress GPS data and derivative evidence; the district court denied suppression relying on United States v. Knotts.
- After convictions, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Jones, holding warrantless installation/use of a vehicle GPS device is a Fourth Amendment “search.”
- The Second Circuit held the government’s pre‑Jones warrantless GPS tracking here falls within the good‑faith exception to the exclusionary rule (Davis), so suppression was not required; the court affirmed convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warrantless placement & use of GPS on vehicle | GPS tracking violated Fourth Amendment; evidence must be suppressed | Pre‑Jones precedent (Knotts/Karo) allowed warrantless tracking on public roads; officers reasonably relied on that law | GPS tracking is a Fourth Amendment “search” post‑Jones, but suppression denied here under the good‑faith exception because reliance on binding precedent was objectively reasonable |
| Application of the good‑faith exception (Davis) | Exclusionary rule should apply because Jones shows search unconstitutional | Officers objectively reasonably relied on Supreme Court precedent (Knotts/Karo) and circuit decisions; exclusion not warranted | Good‑faith exception applies; evidence admissible despite Jones overturning prior understanding |
| Request for Franks hearing (alleged false statement in trap‑and‑trace affidavit) | Material false statement warranted Franks hearing or suppression | Even excising the misstatement, affidavit contained ample independent facts to support the order | District court properly denied Franks hearing and suppression |
| Warrantless search of seized cell phone | Cell phone search required a warrant; evidence from phone should be suppressed | Phone was a closed container in the car; any error admitting phone evidence was harmless given trial record | If error, admission was harmless; no reversal required |
| Completeness of wiretap authorization memo | Missing DOJ authorization might void wiretap and require suppression; hearing required | Government provided affidavit and a complete copy from clerk showing full filing; no further hearing needed | District court properly relied on affidavit and denied additional hearing |
| Sufficiency of evidence against Whitcomb | Evidence shows only buyer‑seller relationship, insufficient for conspiracy conviction | Repeated transactions, recorded calls, trust/credit evidence support conspiracy membership | Evidence sufficient; jury verdict stands |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (Sup. Ct. 1983) (beeper tracking of vehicle movements on public roads did not violate Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (use of a tracking device that reveals information about the interior of private residences is a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (Sup. Ct. 2012) (installation and use of a GPS device on a vehicle is a Fourth Amendment search)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (good‑faith exception: searches made in objectively reasonable reliance on then‑binding precedent are not subject to exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (exclusionary rule limited where officers act in objectively reasonable reliance on warrant)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (Sup. Ct. 1967) (reasonable expectation of privacy standard for Fourth Amendment searches)