United States v. Lopez
895 F. Supp. 2d 592
D. Del.2012Background
- Lopez was indicted in the District of Delaware on possession with intent to distribute heroin, a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and felon in possession of a firearm.
- WPD used two GPS devices to monitor five Lopez-associated vehicles from February 2010 to June 2010, installed outside Lopez’s residence; most vehicles were registered to third parties, not Lopez.
- GPS monitoring occurred without warrants; detectives sought no court order for installation or ongoing tracking during the surveillance period.
- Lopez was arrested June 2, 2010, after GPS alerts and a canine/traffic-stop team intercepted him returning to Wilmington; heroin and a firearm were found in a hidden compartment of the Durango.
- Jones (2012) later held that GPS monitoring of a vehicle is a Fourth Amendment search; Lopez moved to suppress GPS-derived evidence under this ruling and Rule 404(b).
- The court previously denied Lopez’s First Motion to Suppress, finding attenuation between GPS activity and the arrest; the current motion challenges the GPS evidence under Jones and the good-faith doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge GPS monitoring | Lopez has standing to challenge GPS as to all tracked vehicles he used. | Lopez lacks standing for vehicles not registered to him or not in his possession. | Lopez has standing under Jones for vehicles he possessed/used during monitoring. |
| Whether warrantless GPS use was a Fourth Amendment violation | GPS installation/monitoring without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment after Jones. | Short-term, probable-cause or reasonable-suspicion standards may justify warrantless GPS under existing precedent. | Court declines suppression under good-faith, finding reasonable reliance on then-existing law. |
| Applicability of Jones to short-term vs long-term monitoring | Seventeen days over four months is long-term and unconstitutional without a warrant. | Monitoring periods can be considered short-term and permissible with reasonable suspicion. | Court finds the monitoring not clearly short-term and weighs Jones, but resolves on good-faith grounds. |
| Admissibility under Rule 404(b) for knowledge/intent/MO | GPS evidence shows knowledge, intent, and MO of the charged offenses. | Jones forecloses admissibility on these Rule 404(b) grounds. | Admissible under Rule 404(b) as good-faith exception applies. |
| Good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule | Good faith does not apply where GPS was installed without a warrant contrary to Jones. | Detectives relied in good faith on pre-Jones law and guidance from authorities. | Evidence admitted under the good-faith exception; deterrence rationale outweighed by objective reasonableness. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (GPS monitoring constitutes a search; trespass-based rationale)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (exclusionary rule applies when deterrence benefits outweigh costs)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good faith exception to suppression when police act on reasonable reliance)
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (public-street monitoring and surveillance doctrines)
- United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) (GPS-like beeper monitoring and privacy expectations)
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (good-faith reliance on statute later declared unconstitutional)
- Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995) (good-faith reliance on flawed police databases)