United States v. Lopez
2013 WL 3212347
D. Del.2013Background
- Lopez was indicted for heroin distribution and firearm offenses after Wilmington Police used GPS trackers on vehicles he used and later arrested him; he moved to suppress evidence obtained via GPS monitoring.
- The court initially denied Lopez’s suppression motion and granted the government’s Rule 404(b) motion; after Jones (2012), Lopez renewed his suppression claim arguing GPS monitoring was an unlawful warrantless search.
- Lopez argued the good-faith exception cannot apply because there was no binding Third Circuit precedent authorizing warrantless GPS tracking, and urged the court to probe officers’ subjective rationale for using GPS devices without a warrant.
- The government argued the court may consider out-of-circuit precedent to assess objective reasonableness and that the officer’s subjective intent is irrelevant to the good-faith inquiry.
- The court found that at the time the trackers were installed (Feb–June 2010) no federal appellate court had held warrantless exterior GPS tracking unlawful, several circuits had approved warrantless tracking on public roads, and officers consulted supervisors and later the state AG’s office.
- Applying the objective-reasonableness standard and Third Circuit precedent allowing reliance on out-of-circuit law, the court reaffirmed denial of suppression under the good-faith exception and upheld admission of other-act evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Lopez’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GPS installation and monitoring was a Fourth Amendment search and, if so, whether evidence must be suppressed | GPS monitoring was an unlawful warrantless search after Jones; evidence derived from it should be suppressed | Jones establishes GPS use is a search but suppression is not required if officers acted in objectively reasonable good faith | Court: GPS monitoring was a search under Jones, but suppression denied because good-faith exception applies |
| Whether the good-faith exception requires "binding appellate precedent" in the Third Circuit | Good-faith exception should not apply absent binding Third Circuit precedent (relying on Katzin/Ortiz) | Third Circuit permits courts to assess objective reasonableness using out-of-circuit precedent when no binding precedent exists | Court: Good faith can be applied based on the settled state of out-of-circuit law; no binding precedent not dispositive |
| Whether the existence of circuit disagreement (or lack thereof) at the time of surveillance made law "unsettled" | Law was unsettled and thus officers could not reasonably rely on it; suppression required | No circuit split existed before Maynard; at relevant time all circuits that considered the issue had approved warrantless exterior GPS tracking | Court: Law was effectively settled (uniformly permitting warrantless exterior tracking) at the time, so officers’ reliance was objectively reasonable |
| Whether the court may examine officers’ subjective knowledge and deliberations | Court should probe Detective Fox’s subjective reasons and what authorities WPD relied on before installing devices | Good-faith test is objective; subjective intent/deliberations are irrelevant; officers consulted superiors and later AG’s office | Court: Subjective reasoning is irrelevant; objective standard governs, and record shows supervisory consultation supporting good faith |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (installation and use of a GPS device to monitor a vehicle’s movements is a Fourth Amendment search)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (exclusionary rule applies only where deterrence benefits outweigh costs; the good-faith exception limits suppression)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (good-faith exception applies where officers reasonably relied on binding appellate precedent; emphasis on settled law for deterrence analysis)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (establishing the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule for reasonable reliance on a warrant)
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (good-faith exception applies when officers reasonably rely on a statute later declared unconstitutional)
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (warrantless electronic tracking of a vehicle on public roads did not implicate a reasonable expectation of privacy)
- United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) (electronic monitoring that reveals the interior of a home may implicate the Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Pavulak, 700 F.3d 651 (3d Cir. 2012) (Third Circuit considered out-of-circuit precedent to assess objective reasonableness under the good-faith exception)
- United States v. Duka, 671 F.3d 329 (3d Cir. 2011) (Third Circuit upheld good-faith reliance on statute where multiple courts outside the circuit had validated it)
- United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (D.C. Cir. held prolonged warrantless GPS monitoring unreasonable, creating a subsequent circuit split)