United States v. Lee
2012 WL 1880621
E.D. Ky.
2012

Background

  • GPS tracker installed on Lee's car Sept. 2, 2011 without a warrant during supervised release.
  • Cooperating defendant's tip connected Lee to past marijuana distribution; Lee had prior federal conviction (2006).
  • GPS data showed Lee traveling to Chicago and returning toward Kentucky; DEA informed Kentucky State Police.
  • State Trooper Hutti conducted stop for seatbelt violation; Lee admitted marijuana, obtained consent to search.
  • KSP dogs alerted; approximately 150 pounds of marijuana found; Lee arrested.
  • Judge Ingram recommended suppression; United States objected; briefing followed the Supreme Court's Jones decision.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Attenuation of taint from illegal GPS search United States argues attenuation applies; intervening stop severs taint Lee argues taint not attenuated; three-factor test favors suppression Attenuation not established; suppression granted
Good-faith exception applicability United States argues good faith applies; relied on DEA policy Lee argues no binding appellate precedent; no good-faith protection Good-faith exception does not apply
Timeliness of objections United States timely under electronic service rules N/A Objections timely under Rule 45 extensions

Key Cases Cited

  • Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (attenuation factors (three-factor test))
  • United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (exclusionary rule and good-faith reliance on legal authority)
  • Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939) (taint dissipation principles)
  • Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006) (but-for causality and attenuation context)
  • New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 (1990) (causation and suppression principles)
  • Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978) (indirect link to taint via witness testimony)
  • Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (voluntary return to police and taint cases)
  • United States v. Gross, 662 F.3d 393 (2011) (Sixth Circuit on attenuation context)
  • United States v. Forest, 355 F.3d 942 (2004) (cell-site/data tracking relevance to search doctrine)
  • United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (beeper tracking and search capital distinction)
  • United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) (beeper tracking and search privacy expectations)
  • United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (2010) (GPS tracking warrant standards (D.C. Cir.))
Read the full case