United States v. Artez Brewer, 915 F.3d 408

Over six weeks, multiple banks in Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, and California were robbed in a similar fashion; surveillance placed Brewer as a young man lingering at or near several banks just before robberies.
An FBI task force obtained a state magistrate-issued GPS tracking warrant authorizing monitoring a Volvo “in any public or private area in any jurisdiction, within the State of Indiana” for 45 days; the affidavit referenced multistate robberies.
Agents installed the GPS on the Volvo in Indiana and tracked the car as it left Indiana, traveled through other states, and arrived in Los Angeles; officers did not consult the warrant and were unaware of the in-state limitation while tracking.
In Los Angeles, the tracked car was observed near a bank; after a robbery occurred, Brewer and his partner Pawlak were arrested; evidence recovered and post-arrest statements linked Brewer to the broader spree.
Brewer was indicted in the Northern District of Indiana for three Indiana robberies; the district court denied his suppression motion (including contesting out-of-state tracking) and admitted evidence of the Ohio and California robberies under Rule 404(b); a jury convicted him on all counts.
On appeal, Brewer argued (1) Fourth Amendment violation from tracking outside Indiana, (2) improper admission of unindicted-acts evidence under Rule 404(b), and (3) lack of authentication for Ohio surveillance footage.

Issue	Brewer's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether monitoring the GPS-tracked vehicle outside Indiana violated the Fourth Amendment	Warrant limited monitoring to Indiana; tracking beyond that was effectively warrantless and tainted subsequent evidence	Warrant satisfied Fourth Amendment probable cause and particularity; the in-state limitation was not a constitutional requirement and its breach raises at most state-law concerns	No Fourth Amendment violation; tracking outside Indiana did not require suppression
Whether evidence of Ohio and California robberies was admissible under Rule 404(b)	Such other-act evidence was improper propensity evidence and unfairly prejudicial	Other-act evidence was admissible to prove identity, modus operandi, and intent via a propensity-free chain of reasoning; probative value outweighed prejudice	Admission was not an abuse of discretion; 404(b)(2) and Rule 403 balancing satisfied
Whether the Ohio surveillance footage was properly authenticated under Rule 901	Footage lacked adequate foundation because witness could not independently recall the exact day	Teller testified the footage "fairly and accurately" depicted events; that sufficed for authentication; any inconsistencies went to weight	Authentication was adequate; even if error, it was harmless given the remaining evidence

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (GPS tracking generally requires a warrant)
Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192 (1927) (warrants must particularly describe places or things to be searched)
Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997) (officers' reasonable noncompliance with certain warrant terms may still be constitutional)
United States v. Dalia, 441 U.S. 238 (1979) (Fourth Amendment does not require warrants to enumerate all conditions beyond particularity and probable cause)
United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (2006) (warrant particularity and the role of magistrates)
United States v. Faulkner, 826 F.3d 1139 (8th Cir. 2016) (installation/tracking outside authorized geographic area did not violate the Fourth Amendment when probable cause and particularity were met)
United States v. Simms, 385 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2004) (GPS tracking outside the jurisdiction authorized by order did not violate the Fourth Amendment)
United States v. Gomez, 763 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (framework for admitting other-act evidence under Rule 404(b))