United States v. Cuevas-Perez
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8675
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Cuevas-Perez was suspected of drug distribution; ICE/PHX police attached a GPS tracker to his Jeep without a warrant; GPS provided real-time location updates for ~60 hours across multiple states; vehicle subsequent traffic stop in Illinois yielded heroin; suppression motion argued GPS tracking violated Fourth Amendment; district court relied on Garcia to deny suppression; appellate court affirmed denial of suppression; concurring/dissenting opinions discussed Maynard and Knotts distinctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless GPS tracking is a Fourth Amendment search | Cuevas-Perez argues GPS monitoring is a search under Maynard. | Cuevas-Perez argues prolonged/real-time tracking reveals privacy interests. | No, under Knotts/Garcia the GPS use here is not a search. |
| Impact of 60-hour single journey vs Maynard's 28-day surveillance | Maynard extends protection for long-term surveillance. | Shortest duration so not a search under Knotts. | Not a prolonged surveillance case; surveillance duration here does not trigger Maynard. |
| Effect of real-time vs stored/public information on Fourth Amendment analysis | Real-time data increases intrusiveness. | Public exposure remains the same framework; technology differences do not alter Knotts. | Real-time data does not necessarily create a search beyond Knotts framework. |
| Whether constructive exposure or mosaic theory applies | Maynard's mosaic/constructive exposure expands privacy interests. | Constructive exposure not recognized under current Fourth Amendment doctrine. | Mosaic/constructive exposure do not override Knotts in this context. |
| Whether warrant was required ex ante for GPS use | Ex ante need for probable cause/warrant for planned surveillance. | If purpose anticipated, no warrant needed absent Maynard-scale exposure. | No warrant required given purpose/ex ante use aligns with Knotts/Garcia. |
Key Cases Cited
- Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (approval of beeper tracking; movements on public roads not a search)
- Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) (monitoring inside private residence can be a search; limits of beeper monitoring)
- Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334 (2000) (intrusiveness of carrying luggage; not just exposure to public)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (techno surveillance of home; high intrusion with uncommon technology)
- Garcia, 474 F.3d 994 (2007) (GPS tracking not per se a search; recognizes mass surveillance concerns)
- Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (2010) (DC Circuit: prolonged GPS tracking can be a search; mosaic/actual exposure concerns)
- Quon, 130 S. Ct. 2619 (2010) (privacy expectations in electronic workplace communications; measured approach)
- Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988) (dumpster/privacy; no reasonable expectation of privacy for discarded items)
- Smith, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (pen registers; information conveyed to third parties not private)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (two-part test for Fourth Amendment privacy/right to privacy)