United States v. Oladosu
887 F. Supp. 2d 437
D.R.I.2012Background
- Defendant Oladosu was indicted on possession of heroin with intent to distribute and conspiracy to possess, involving 100 grams or more of heroin.
- Detective DiFilippo installed an all-in-one GPS device on Oladosu’s car on February 12, 2010, without a warrant, and continuously monitored it until arrest in March 2010.
- The GPS was placed on a public roadway and powered by its own batteries; batteries were later replaced in Oladosu’s driveway.
- Detective DiFilippo performed surveillance and follow-up investigations based on GPS data, including stops, conversations with a letter carrier, and coordination with postal inspectors regarding a suspected package.
- On March 30, 2010, a controlled delivery led to Oladosu’s arrest and the discovery of a package containing heroin, with a number of packets concealed in footwear and a purse.
- After Jones held that warrantless GPS monitoring is a search, petitioner moved to suppress; the government urged good-faith and attenuation defenses, invoking Davis and related precedents; the court denied suppression, applying the good-faith exception on a case-by-case analysis of the legal landscape at the time of GPS use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether good-faith exception applies to warrantless GPS use post-Jones | Oladosu argues suppression is required because GPS was installed without a warrant and Jones invalidated warrantless GPS. | Oladosu contends lack of binding precedent would negate good-faith reliance. | Good-faith exception applied; suppression denied. |
| Role of Davis framework given unsettled law on GPS before Jones | Davis did not control where precedent was unsettled. | Court should follow Davis’s good-faith analysis. | Court rejected rigid binding-precedent rule; applied case-by-case assessment. |
| Attenuation of information from, and impact of, the GPS violation | Suppression should apply due to the Fourth Amendment violation. | Attenuation not necessary because good-faith applies. | Attenuation not reached; good-faith applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (GPS monitoring as a search requires a warrant)
- Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011) (searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (deterrence and good-faith analysis in exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Baez, 878 F. Supp. 2d 288 (D. Mass. 2012) (approach permitting good-faith reliance on substantial circuit consensus)
- United States v. Ortiz, 878 F. Supp. 2d 515 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (non-binding precedent considerations in good-faith analysis)
- United States v. Lujan, 2012 WL 2861546 (N.D. Miss. 2012) (no binding precedent in Sixth Circuit at time of GPS use)
- United States v. Lee, 862 F. Supp. 2d 560 (E.D. Ky. 2012) (no binding Sixth Circuit precedent at time of GPS use)
- United States v. Katzin, 2012 WL 1646894 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (GPS use without binding authority—case-by-case good-faith analysis)
- United States v. Pineda-Moreno, 591 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2010) (precedent on GPS tracking before Jones)