United States v. Harry Katzin
769 F.3d 163
| 3rd Cir. | 2014Background
- FBI investigated Rite Aid pharmacy burglaries in the tri-state area using GPS surveillance on Harry Katzin’s van, installed without a warrant on a public street.
- GPS tracked Katzin’s movements for two days, revealing proximity to a Rite Aid and leading to arrests of Katzin and two brothers, Michael and Mark.
- Jones later held that GPS installation and monitoring constitutes a Fourth Amendment search, prompting suppression motions.
- District Court suppressed the evidence; appellate panel initially split on the good faith exception’s applicability.
- Court majority affirmatively held the good faith exception applies, relying on Knotts, Karo, and broader good faith principles, and noting AUSA approval and pre-Jones jurisprudence.
- Dissent argues Knotts and Karo do not bind pre-Jones GPS installation and warns that expanding good faith undermines the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the good faith exception applies to GPS installation and surveillance | Katzin argues suppression warranted; no binding precedent supports warrantless GPS. | Government contends Davis-based framework and wider good faith justify admission of evidence. | Yes; evidence admitted under good faith exception. |
| Whether Knotts and Karo bind good faith analysis for GPS | Knotts/Karo do not bind Third Circuit decisions; distinguishable from Katzin. | Knotts/Karo provide objective reasonableness for GPS installation and surveillance. | Knotts and Karo were binding appellate precedent for purposes of Davis; reliance reasonable. |
| Was pre-Jones law enough to justify warrantless GPS installation | Pre-Jones cases cannot justify warrantless installation due to evolving technology. | Precedent uniformly allowed GPS installation without warrant; aligns with Jones’s later shift only on theory. | Pre-Jones precedent was reasonably relied upon; installation lawful under good faith. |
| Did AUSA consultation affect the good faith determination | AUSA approval does not validate unlawful conduct. | AUSA advice under DOJ policy supports reasonableness of conduct. | AUSA consultation supports, but is not solely dispositive; overall good faith still warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in movement on public roads; beeper surveillance)
- United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) (trespass theory rejected; beeper transfer not a violation; monitoring context)
- Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011) (good faith exception for reliance on binding precedent)
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (GPS installation and monitoring as a search (Jones revived trespass theory))
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (technology must be considered for reasonable privacy expectations)