United States v. Taylor
979 F. Supp. 2d 865
S.D. Ind.2013Background
- In 2011 Indianapolis police received tips linking Dwan Taylor to cocaine and firearms, surveilled him, and identified a silver 2006 Chevrolet Impala registered to him.
- Marion County state court authorized attaching and using a GPS tracking unit on Taylor’s vehicle for 60 days; the GPS led investigators to a Hoosier Storage unit (No. 1134).
- Police obtained a state search warrant for Unit 1134 based on surveillance (stated as human surveillance) and a canine sniff that indicated narcotics; the search recovered ~752.61 grams of cocaine and four firearms.
- Taylor was federally indicted for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and being a felon in possession of firearms, and moved to suppress the storage-unit evidence.
- Taylor argued (1) the GPS attachment/use was an unlawful warrantless search, (2) the search-warrant affidavit omitted that surveillance was GPS-based (a Franks claim), and (3) the warrantless dog sniff was an illegal search.
- The court found the GPS attachment/use did violate the Fourth Amendment under United States v. Jones, but denied suppression because officers reasonably relied on state judicial authorization; the court rejected Taylor’s Franks claim and held the dog sniff was not a Fourth Amendment search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of warrantless GPS attachment/use | Taylor: attaching and monitoring the GPS without a federal Rule 41 warrant or probable cause was an unconstitutional search and fruits must be suppressed | Govt: GPS use was lawful under then-applicable Seventh Circuit precedent and officers acted in good faith; state rules govern state investigations | Court: GPS use was a Fourth Amendment search (Jones) but suppression denied because officers objectively and reasonably relied on state judicial authorization obtained before installation |
| Applicability of Fed. R. Crim. P. 41 to state judicial authorization | Taylor: federal Rule 41 protections should apply and were violated | Govt: Rule 41 governs federal proceedings and did not bind state officers in a state investigation | Court: Rule 41 does not apply to state proceedings here; Taylor’s Rule 41 argument fails |
| Franks challenge to search-warrant affidavit (omission of GPS surveillance) | Taylor: omission that surveillance was GPS-based was material and reckless, requiring suppression or a Franks hearing | Govt: Taylor’s attack is conclusory and lacks proof of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard | Court: Taylor failed to make the substantial preliminary showing required by Franks; no hearing or suppression |
| Legality of canine sniff of storage unit exterior | Taylor: Jardines and concurrence suggest a sniff can be a search of private spaces like storage units | Govt: Jardines protects homes/curtilage; dog sniffs where officers are lawfully present are not searches (Caballes, Place, Brock) | Court: Dog sniff conducted from common area with owner consent was not a Fourth Amendment search; no suppression on that ground |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (attachment/use of GPS on a vehicle constitutes a Fourth Amendment search)
- Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011) (good-faith exclusionary-rule exception for searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (establishes the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (standards for requiring an evidentiary hearing when affidavit contains falsehoods)
- Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013) (use of drug-sniffing dog on the curtilage of a home is a Fourth Amendment search based on physical intrusion)
- United States v. Cuevas-Perez, 640 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2011) (distinguishes short-duration, single-trip GPS tracking from long-term surveillance; Seventh Circuit guidance on warrantless GPS use was unsettled)
- United States v. Garcia, 474 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2007) (held GPS attachment in that case was not a search; court noted limits where device draws power or affects vehicle)
- United States v. Brock, 417 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 2005) (canine sniff from an area where police are lawfully present does not constitute a Fourth Amendment search)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (dog sniffs that only reveal contraband do not implicate legitimate privacy interests)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) (canine sniff of luggage in public is not a Fourth Amendment search)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (exclusionary rule not required for isolated or negligent violations; deterrence rationale required for suppression)