Victor Keeylen v. State of Indiana
14 N.E.3d 865
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Keeylen was the target of a long-term narcotics investigation involving multiple controlled buys and confidential informants; police sought and repeatedly obtained court authorizations to install GPS units on two of his vehicles.
- Authorizations to install and monitor GPS devices were issued repeatedly between August 2009 and early 2011, though some authorizations lapsed and were later renewed.
- Police used multiple sources (GPS data, a Go‑Reala business website listing, confidential informant tips, surveillance, and a trash pull showing mail) to tie Keeylen to a Narrowleaf Drive residence.
- Detective Graber applied for a search warrant for the Narrowleaf Drive home on June 7, 2011; the affidavit omitted reference to the GPS monitoring. The warrant issued and the search recovered drugs, cash, paraphernalia, and a shotgun.
- Keeylen moved to suppress, arguing the GPS installation and monitoring were warrantless searches and that omission of GPS use from the affidavit was a deliberate or reckless omission (a "reverse‑Franks" claim). The trial court denied suppression; Keeylen appealed interlocutorily.
- The Court of Appeals agreed the GPS installation/use was a Fourth Amendment search but held suppression of the evidence found at the house was not warranted because (1) the omission did not meet the reverse‑Franks standard and (2) the affidavit contained independent information supporting probable cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attaching and monitoring GPS devices to Keeylen’s vehicles was a Fourth Amendment "search" | Jones requires treating GPS installation/use as a search; thus it was a search here | State conceded GPS attachment implicated privacy interests but argued prior judicial authorizations mitigated error | Court: Installation/use was a search under Jones; warrant generally required |
| Whether a warrant (probable cause) was required to install/monitor GPS devices | Keeylen: probable‑cause warrant required before GPS placement/long‑term monitoring | State: repeated court authorizations (though not labeled warrants) substantially complied and no warrant language was used at the time | Court: Probable‑cause warrant is required absent extraordinary circumstances; authorizations that are not warrants are not necessarily equivalent to warrants |
| Whether omission of GPS use from the search‑warrant affidavit was deliberate/reckless and thus required a Franks hearing (reverse‑Franks) | Keeylen: detectives omitted GPS use to conceal primary source of address linkage; omission was deliberate/reckless and material to probable cause | State: affidavit contained ample independent information (website, informants, surveillance, trash pull); omission was not intended to mislead the issuing judge | Court: Keeylen failed to make the required substantial preliminary showing of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard; omission was not shown to be material because independent evidence supported probable cause |
| Whether evidence from the house should be suppressed (good‑faith/exclusionary rule) | Keeylen: evidence is derivative of illegal GPS search and affidavit omission, so it must be suppressed | State: even if GPS use was improper, officers acted with judicial authorizations and good faith; affidavit would still establish probable cause without GPS data | Court: Even assuming no good‑faith exception for GPS data, suppression was not warranted because affidavit—when supplemented with the omitted facts—would still have supported probable cause due to independent corroborating information |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (installation/use of GPS on vehicle constitutes a Fourth Amendment search)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (defendant entitled to hearing if substantial showing that affidavit contains intentional/reckless falsehoods material to probable cause)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004) (warrant must demonstrate magistrate actually found probable cause)