928 F.3d 968
10th Cir.2019Background
- Mathews, while serving a Colorado Community Intensive Supervision sentence (still considered incarcerated), signed a Community Supervision Lawful Order (CSL Order) that included provisions for electronic monitoring and consent to searches by a Community Parole Officer (CPO).
- His ankle monitor was changed to a GPS device; historical GPS location data were stored by contractor BI, Inc. in a web-based system (Total Access) accessible by CDOC CPOs with login credentials.
- Aaron Anderson, a CDOC CPO who also served as an ATF task force officer, accessed Mathews’s historical GPS data for dates of several pawnshop robberies and found Mathews in the vicinity; that data helped obtain a search warrant for an address frequented by Mathews, producing evidence used at trial.
- Mathews was federally indicted on two Hobbs Act robbery counts (18 U.S.C. § 1951) and one 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) firearms count; he moved to suppress the GPS data and fruits of the search and sought to exclude or pre-litigate the government’s GPS expert under Daubert.
- The district court denied suppression and declined a preliminary Daubert hearing (but ordered the government to summarize the expert’s opinions and address plotting discrepancies). A jury convicted Mathews on all counts; he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Anderson’s access to historical GPS data was a Fourth Amendment search requiring suppression | Mathews: accessing his historical GPS tracked location was an unconstitutional, warrantless search and fruits must be suppressed | Government: Mathews had diminished privacy; data were held by CDOC contractor and search was permissible under parolee/probationer exceptions (totality of circumstances and state-authorized search) | Court: Even assuming a search occurred, it was permitted under the totality-of-the-circumstances exception because state law (CSL Order) authorized searches; suppression denied |
| Whether Colorado precedent (McCullough) requires searches to be conducted "in furtherance" of parole goals | Mathews: Colorado law requires warrantless parole searches to further parole purposes, so this law-enforcement-oriented access violates the state rule and the Fourth Amendment | Government: Supreme Court precedent (Knights, Samson) abrogated the Colorado "in furtherance" limitation; state law must be read consistent with federal Fourth Amendment holdings | Court: McCullough’s "in furtherance" requirement was effectively abrogated by later Supreme Court cases; Mathews’s reliance on McCullough fails |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by ruling on suppression without an evidentiary hearing | Mathews: factual disputes about the character of the CSL Order (contract, waiver, or acknowledgment) warranted a hearing | Government: the dispute was legal (effect of the CSL Order) and Mathews identified no contested factual matter necessary for suppression ruling | Court: No abuse of discretion; hearing unnecessary because only legal characterizations were disputed and CSL Order did not address use of historical GPS data |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by denying a preliminary Daubert hearing for the government’s GPS expert | Mathews: needed a Daubert hearing to test Buck’s credentials and the reliability/bases of his GPS analysis | Government: provided expert identity and GPS coordinates; court ordered a summary of the expert’s opinions and discrepancies; Mathews did not timely challenge methodology | Court: No abuse of discretion; Daubert does not mandate a hearing, court satisfied defense requests and no timely reliability challenge was made (plain-error review fails) |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (privacy expectations for location data and warrant considerations)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (physical intrusion onto a constitutionally protected area constitutes a search)
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) (suspicionless searches of parolees consistent with the Fourth Amendment where authorized by statute)
- Knights v. United States, 534 U.S. 112 (2001) (probation searches evaluated under totality-of-the-circumstances without inquiry into official purpose)
- United States v. Freeman, 479 F.3d 743 (10th Cir. 2007) (parole agreement search provisions and state-law-defined scope inform Fourth Amendment analysis)
- United States v. Mabry, 728 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2013) (state-authorized parolee searches generally satisfy totality-of-the-circumstances exception)
- People v. McCullough, 6 P.3d 774 (Colo. 2000) (Colorado required parole searches be in furtherance of parole purposes—a doctrine the court found superseded by later Supreme Court precedent)
- United States v. Latorre, 893 F.3d 744 (10th Cir. 2018) (standard of review for suppression rulings)