United States v. Fisher
745 F.3d 200
6th Cir.2014Background
- In May–June 2010 DEA and local officers, using a confidential informant and physical surveillance, attached a battery-powered GPS unit to Brian Fisher’s car and monitored his trips to Lansing and Chicago.
- The GPS (Guardian 811) provided location data and geofence alerts; officers used it intermittently alongside visual surveillance to corroborate movements.
- After Fisher returned from Chicago, he was stopped; a narcotics dog alerted and police discovered three ounces of cocaine. Fisher was charged with possession with intent to distribute.
- Fisher moved to suppress evidence, arguing the warrantless GPS installation and monitoring violated the Fourth Amendment; the district court initially denied suppression and Fisher pleaded guilty conditionally.
- While appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Jones (holding GPS installation and monitoring is a Fourth Amendment search). The case was remanded; on renewed suppression briefing the magistrate and district court applied the good-faith exception and denied suppression.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding officers reasonably relied on then-binding precedent and trainings that the warrantless tracking was lawful, so the exclusionary rule did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GPS installation/monitoring was a Fourth Amendment search requiring exclusion of derivative evidence | Fisher: warrantless placement/monitoring violated Fourth Amendment and evidence must be suppressed | Gov: officers acted in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance on binding precedent and trainings, so exclusionary rule should not apply | Court: GPS monitoring later held a search (Jones), but suppression is not required because good-faith exception applies |
| Whether the good-faith exception covers reliance on then-binding appellate precedent later overruled by Supreme Court | Fisher: later Jones means evidence should be excluded despite earlier precedent | Gov: Davis and related precedent allow good-faith exception when officers reasonably rely on binding appellate law | Court: Applied Davis; officers’ reliance on uniform circuit authority and guidance was objectively reasonable, so exclusionary rule inapplicable |
| Whether differences between GPS and earlier tracking tech (beepers/cell-site) make prior precedent inapplicable | Fisher: GPS capabilities differ and could create greater privacy intrusion | Gov: pre-Jones cases (Knotts, Karo, Forest, others) and uniform circuit authority treated tracking as non-search or permissible | Court: Differences immaterial here; factual use (public tracking, intermittent reads) closely aligned with prior precedent, so reliance was reasonable |
| Whether officer trainings/advice from prosecutors vitiate good-faith inquiry | Fisher: trainings don’t cure unconstitutional conduct | Gov: consistent multi-agency trainings reflected prevailing circuit consensus and supported objective reasonableness | Court: Trainings corroborated objective reasonableness but were not dispositive; overall conduct was not deliberate/reckless so good faith stands |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (installation and use of GPS on vehicle constitutes a Fourth Amendment search)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (exclusionary rule does not apply when police act in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (exclusionary rule is last resort; focuses on deterrence and flagrancy of police misconduct)
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (monitoring beeper in public movements did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) (use of tracking device in certain contexts does not always implicate Fourth Amendment; physical trespass given limited weight)
- United States v. Forest, 355 F.3d 942 (6th Cir. 2004) (cell-site tracking did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search under then-applicable law)
- United States v. Buford, 632 F.3d 264 (6th Cir. 2011) (principle that new Supreme Court constitutional rules apply to cases on direct review)
- United States v. Pineda-Moreno, 591 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2010) (pre-Jones circuit decision upholding certain warrantless GPS tracking)
- United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (pre-Jones decision holding prolonged GPS monitoring is a search; relevant but issued after the search in this case)