United States v. Cory Castetter
2017 WL 3319302
7th Cir.2017Background
- Michigan police obtained and executed a warrant to install and monitor a GPS tracker on Mark Holst’s car to investigate methamphetamine trafficking. The device transmitted real-time location data.
- On September 4, 2014, tracking showed Holst’s car stopped at a house for over an hour; an informant reported Holst had gone to buy methamphetamine.
- Police stopped Holst later and found methamphetamine; information from the GPS tracking and that stop was relayed to other officers.
- Indiana officers used that information to obtain a second warrant to search the house in whose driveway Holst had lingered (owned by Cory Castetter); the search yielded drugs and about $62,000 in cash.
- Castetter moved to suppress evidence from the second warrant, arguing (1) Michigan police lacked authority to monitor Holst’s car while it was in Indiana and (2) the GPS-derived information implicated Castetter’s privacy so evidence about his home should be excluded. The district court denied suppression; Castetter pleaded guilty conditional on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Castetter's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether information from a out-of-state GPS tracking warrant must be excluded because the tracking occurred across state lines | Michigan police lacked authority to monitor Holst’s car in Indiana; Fourth Amendment concerns about extraterritorial tracking | Fourth Amendment is not limited by state borders; warrant requirements were satisfied and state-law limits do not trigger suppression in federal prosecutions | Rejected Castetter; state borders do not invalidate the warrant-derived information and suppression is not required |
| Whether information obtained by monitoring Holst’s car invaded Castetter’s Fourth Amendment privacy such that evidence discovered later must be excluded | The first warrant tracked Holst, not Castetter; police could not use it to learn about activities at Castetter’s home without a warrant based on his own conduct | Tracking revealed only Holst’s car location — Holst had no privacy interest in location vis-à-vis Castetter; learning about a third party from a valid warrant is permissible | Rejected Castetter; no reasonable expectation of privacy in another’s location and derivative use of location info did not violate Castetter’s rights |
| Whether state-law limits on extraterritorial police action require exclusion of evidence in federal prosecutions | State-law prohibitions (Michigan) on extraterritorial enforcement should bar use of that surveillance in Indiana | Federal courts do not apply the exclusionary rule to enforce state-law restrictions; the Indiana judge implicitly approved using the information | Rejected Castetter; violations of state law do not justify suppression in federal prosecutions |
| Whether GPS/satellite/internet tracking implicates sovereignty or national-power limits that would invalidate the surveillance | Tracking crosses state lines and uses satellite/internet resources, so it exceeds local authority and implicates sovereignty concerns | Radio, interstate networks, and GPS are federally regulated; tracking does not offend state sovereignty for Fourth Amendment purposes | Rejected Castetter; national regulation of these systems supports validity of the tracking and its use |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (GPS tracking and attachment of a device implicate Fourth Amendment protections)
- Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008) (violations of state law do not automatically trigger suppression in federal prosecutions)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (use of technology to obtain detailed information from inside a home can implicate the Fourth Amendment)
- Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966) (information given by a willing informant does not violate the target’s Fourth Amendment rights)
- United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980) (privacy invaded of a third party cannot be asserted by another to suppress evidence)
- Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (1980) (standing to challenge a search depends on one’s own expectation of privacy)
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (federal authority extends to regulation of activities implicating interstate commerce, relevant to national regulation of communications and GPS)