United States v. Trevor Ransfer
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6950
11th Cir.2014Background
- Six defendants were indicted on sixteen counts of Hobbs Act robbery, conspiracy, and firearms offenses arising from a series of Florida robberies between April and June 2011.
- GPS tracking device was placed on a Ford Expedition used in robberies without a warrant, leading to evidence at trial.
- Defendants challenged the GPS evidence as unconstitutional under Jones and sought suppression.
- Sergeant Villaverde testified about informant-derived and surveillance-based information, which appellants argued was hearsay and improperly admitted.
- Defendants moved to suppress post-arrest statements; magistrate found voluntariness and the district court adopted, with findings that warnings were given and custodial conditions were lawful.
- Lowe challenges include insufficient evidence on some counts, exclusion of a medical expert, and a restriction on closing arguments; government sought to prove interstate commerce involvement and conspiratorial conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPS tracking search admissibility | Ransfer, Hanna rely on Jones to suppress GPS data | GPS install/use violated Fourth Amendment after Jones | Good faith reliance on binding precedent allowed admission |
| Hearsay and admission of Villaverde testimony | Evidence explained investigation; non-hearsay purpose | Statements were hearsay and prejudicial | Not reversible error; content corroborated by other record evidence |
| Sufficiency of Lowe’s conviction and Kendall CVS counts | Cell data, video, and statements show Lowe’s involvement | No evidence Lowe inside Kendall CVS or acted to further that robbery | Sufficient evidence for some counts; Kendall CVS counts vacated and remanded for acquittal and resentencing on those counts |
| Voluntariness of post-arrest statements | Waivers were voluntary; custodial conditions lawful | Detention length/coercion questioned | Good faith in voluntariness; statements admissible; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (GPS monitoring constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment)
- Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule for reliance on binding precedent)
- United States v. Michael, 645 F.2d 252 (5th Cir. 1981) (reasonable suspicion supports warrantless beeper installation)
- United States v. Sparks, 711 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2013) (Davis good-faith exception applied to warrantless GPS under binding precedent)
- United States v. Pineda-Moreno, 688 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2012) (pre-Jones GPS surveillance admissible under Davis framework)
- United States v. Moore, 562 F.2d 106 (1st Cir. 1977) (trespass concerns for beeper placement deemed insignificant for Fourth Amendment)