United States v. Kyle Korte
918 F.3d 750
| 9th Cir. | 2019Background
- Korte, a California parolee (subject to warrantless, suspicionless searches under Cal. Penal Code §3067), was suspected in a series of October 2016 bank robberies.
- LASD placed a warrantless GPS tracker on Korte’s rented car and monitored it for six days; the FBI also obtained Korte’s historical cell-site location information (CSLI) by court order under 18 U.S.C. §2703(d).
- CSLI placed Korte’s phone near three of the four robbed banks; officers observed Korte put an item in the trunk, arrested him, and searched the car’s trunk, recovering a toy gun and clothing.
- Korte was indicted on four counts (one attempted, three completed bank robberies) and moved to suppress: (1) trunk evidence, (2) GPS-derived evidence, and (3) CSLI. The district court denied all suppression motions.
- At trial the jury convicted on all counts; Korte appealed the denial of suppression motions. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, addressing the three Fourth Amendment search issues and the sufficiency of evidence for the attempted-robbery count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of warrantless search of car trunk under parole-search condition | Trunk search exceeded parole condition because trunk is not "property under his control" | Parole condition covers "you, your residence, and any property under your control," including the car and its trunk (Korte rented the car and handled the trunk) | Affirmed: trunk search lawful as parole search; control over car (and nexus to trunk) permits search |
| Placement/use of GPS tracker on parolee’s car without warrant | GPS placement is a Jones search requiring a warrant; parolee still should receive that protection | Samson limits parolee privacy; parole-search condition permits warrantless placement and monitoring | Affirmed: warrantless placement/monitoring permitted as parole search given diminished privacy and supervisory needs |
| Admissibility of CSLI obtained by §2703(d) order pre-Carpenter | CSLI acquisition violated Fourth Amendment (per Carpenter) thus should be suppressed | Government reasonably relied on the SCA and court orders in effect at the time; exclusionary rule not warranted | Affirmed: good-faith exception applies to pre-Carpenter CSLI obtained under then-valid SCA orders |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted robbery (intimidation element) | Jury lacked evidence of intimidation because teller saw no weapon and was behind glass | Teller’s testimony that she was panicked/scared and defendant’s masked demand sufficed as intimidation | Affirmed conviction: testimony of fear plus demand/mask met "intimidation" element |
Key Cases Cited
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) (upholding California parole-search condition and reduced privacy expectations for parolees)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (installation of GPS on vehicle is a search under the Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) (lawful vehicle search extends to all compartments that may contain the object of the search)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule for objectively reasonable official reliance)
- Krull v. United States, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (statutory-authority reliance can support good-faith exception)
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (warrant required for historical CSLI; new decision post-dating government’s CSLI order)