United States v. Ortiz
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101245
E.D. Pa.2012Background
- DEA installed GPS trackers on defendant Ortiz's vehicle without a warrant during a long-running DTG investigation.
- Tracker One was placed on Ortiz's blue pickup truck after pole cameras were authorized; no warrant obtained for installation.
- Tracker Two was installed at Sugar House Casino after Ortiz was observed; subsequent monitoring aimed to follow proceeds to a tractor-trailer.
- Pole cameras monitored the Warehouse activity; pattern suggested proceeds and cocaine movements; $2.3 million in suspected drug proceeds were later recovered from a tractor-trailer.
- Defendant Ortiz was observed at the Warehouse and nearby residences; a blue pickup traced to him with prior narcotics conviction.
- Court evaluates whether warrantless GPS installation/monitoring violated the Fourth Amendment and whether Davis-like good-faith doctrine applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GPS tracking is a search requiring a warrant | Ortiz: GPS tracking requires a warrant under Jones | Ortiz: warrantless tracking violates Fourth Amendment; good-faith may apply | Warrant required; GPS tracking without a warrant violates Fourth Amendment |
| Whether reasonable suspicion could justify GPS installation | Government: reasonable suspicion suffices for GPS placement/monitoring | Ortiz: no, requires warrant, not just reasonable suspicion | No; reasonable suspicion not enough to justify warrantless GPS tracking |
| Whether the automobile exception applies to GPS installation | Government: probable cause plus automobile-vehicle mobility justifies | Ortiz: automobile exception does not extend to GPS installation | Not applicable; automobile exception does not authorize warrantless GPS installation |
| Whether the exclusionary rule applies given Davis v. United States | Government: Davis allows good-faith reliance on non-binding precedent | Ortiz: exclusion is warranted to deter unlawful practice | Exclusionary rule applies; suppression warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (GPS attachment and monitoring as a search)
- Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (beeper surveillance in public; not controlling for GPS)
- Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) (beeper inside residence; protected data)
- Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011) (exclusionary rule limited by binding precedent reliance)
- Katzin, 2012 WL 1646894 (2012) (non-binding precedents and GPS; treatment in similar decisions)