United States v. Oladosu
744 F.3d 36
1st Cir.2014Background
- Officer DiFilippo (HIDTA task force) attached a GPS device to Oladosu’s car and tracked it for 47 days (device inactive 18 days while defendant was abroad). GPS data helped lead to a controlled delivery and Oladosu’s arrest for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute heroin.
- Oladosu moved to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless GPS monitoring.
- While the suppression motion was pending, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Jones holding that installing and using a GPS tracker is a Fourth Amendment search.
- The district court denied suppression under the good-faith exception (officers relied on pre-Jones precedent); Oladosu appealed.
- This panel, bound by circuit precedent (notably United States v. Sparks), reviewed de novo and considered whether extended monitoring or a brief entry onto Oladosu’s driveway changed the analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Oladosu) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless GPS installation and prolonged monitoring violated the Fourth Amendment | Agents acted reasonably relying on then-binding precedent (Knotts/Moore); evidence admissible under good-faith exception | Warrantless GPS tracking for 47 days was a prolonged, intrusive "dragnet"; driveway reinstallation invaded curtilage and was an independent violation | Court applied Sparks/Baez reasoning: officers reasonably relied on pre-Jones precedent; good-faith exception applies; denial of suppression affirmed |
| Whether duration (47 days) alone defeats good-faith reliance | Duration not dispositive if officers’ conduct complied with prevailing precedent | Prolonged monitoring here was sufficiently extensive to exceed Knotts and make reliance unreasonable | Duration alone insufficient; Oladosu failed to show monitoring was so extensive that reliance was unreasonable |
| Whether brief entry onto defendant’s driveway for battery change implicated curtilage and alters analysis | Any driveway entry did not meaningfully distinguish Sparks or negate reliance on precedent | Reinstallation in driveway constituted a curtilage intrusion and independent Fourth Amendment violation | Argument waived for failure to develop curtilage analysis; court declined to consider it |
| Whether Sparks should be overruled | Sparks upheld pre-Jones GPS tracking under good-faith exception and remains binding absent controlling supervening authority | Sparks was wrongly decided and should not control | Sparks is binding; Oladosu did not identify supervening authority to warrant departure |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (installing and using a GPS tracker is a Fourth Amendment search)
- Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule applies where officers reasonably relied on binding precedent)
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (visual and limited electronic surveillance principles; discussion of "dragnet")
- United States v. Sparks, 711 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2013) (upheld pre-Jones warrantless GPS tracking under good-faith exception)
- United States v. Moore, 562 F.2d 106 (1st Cir. 1977) (earlier First Circuit precedent authorizing certain tracking practices)
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (factors for determining curtilage)
- United States v. Brown, 510 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2007) (application of curtilage factors in this circuit)
- United States v. Oladosu, 887 F. Supp. 2d 437 (D.R.I. 2012) (district court opinion denying suppression)