United States v. Paciano Lizarraga-Tirado
789 F.3d 1107
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Defendant arrested near U.S.–Mexico border and charged with illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326; he claimed he was still in Mexico when arrested.
- Border Patrol agents testified they arrested him north of the border and that Agent Garcia recorded GPS coordinates at the time.
- Government introduced a Google Earth satellite image showing the border and a digital tack labeled with GPS coordinates matching those Garcia recorded.
- No witness testified about who created the satellite image or how the tack/label was placed; record did not show whether the tack was auto-generated or manually added.
- Defense objected on hearsay grounds; district court admitted the image and tack.
- On appeal, defendant argued the satellite image and the tack/coordinates were hearsay (and raised other claims rejected in a memorandum disposition).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a raw Google Earth satellite image is hearsay | Image is non-hearsay: like a photograph, it merely depicts a scene | Image is hearsay because it asserts accurate representation of the area | Held: Not hearsay — like photographs, satellite images make no human assertion and thus are not hearsay |
| Whether a Google Earth tack/coordinate label is hearsay when admitted without origin testimony | Tack generated by program is non-hearsay because the program—not a person—places and labels the tack | Tack/label are hearsay if they reflect an out-of-court assertion about location, especially if manually placed | Held: If auto-generated by Google Earth, the tack/label are not hearsay because the relevant assertion is made by a machine, not a person |
| Whether machine-generated map markers raise admissibility concerns beyond hearsay | Any reliability or tampering concerns should be addressed by authentication, not hearsay | Machine output can be unreliable and thus should be excluded unless authenticated | Held: Authentication (Fed. R. Evid. 901) — not hearsay — governs reliability; proponent must authenticate system/process if challenged (defendant did not raise authentication on appeal) |
| Whether admission of the image/tack violated Confrontation Clause | Confrontation Clause does not apply to non-hearsay machine statements | Admission of out-of-court assertions implicates confrontation rights | Held: No Confrontation Clause violation because the admitted evidence was non-hearsay machine output |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. May, 622 F.2d 1000 (9th Cir. 1980) (photograph is not hearsay because it makes no assertion)
- United States v. Oaxaca, 569 F.2d 518 (9th Cir. 1978) (photographs treated as depictions, not assertions)
- Aronson v. McDonald, 248 F.2d 507 (9th Cir. 1957) (hand-drawn additions to maps constitute hearsay)
- United States v. Lamons, 532 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2008) (machine-generated statements not hearsay)
- United States v. Moon, 512 F.3d 359 (7th Cir. 2008) (machine output not hearsay)
- United States v. Washington, 498 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2007) (machine statements analyzed as non-hearsay; authentication addresses reliability)
- United States v. Hamilton, 413 F.3d 1138 (10th Cir. 2005) (machine-generated data not hearsay)
- United States v. Khorozian, 333 F.3d 498 (3d Cir. 2003) (discussing machine output and hearsay)
- United States v. Arteaga, 117 F.3d 388 (9th Cir. 1997) (hearsay rule and statements definition)
- United States v. Mitchell, 502 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2007) (Confrontation Clause inapplicable to non-hearsay)
- United States v. Espinal-Almeida, 699 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2012) (authentication issues for Google Earth–marked maps)