D.Ariz: No Fourth Amendment right against placing GPS magnetically to exterior of truck

Placing a GPS on defendant’s tractor trailer did not violate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Coombs, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105547 (D. Ariz. October 22, 2009):

Under Ninth Circuit precedent, the placement of a magnetized electronic tracking device on the undercarriage of a vehicle is not an illegal search or seizure. United States v. McIver, 186 F.3d 1119, 1126-1127 (9th Cir.1999). There is no expectation of privacy in the exterior of a car because “[t]he exterior of a car, of course, is thrust into the public eye, and thus to examine it does not constitute a ‘search’.” New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106, 107 (1986). The placement of a tracking device on the undercarriage of a vehicle is also not a seizure. “A seizure of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.” United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705, 712-713 (1984) (internal citation omitted). In McIver, the placement of a magnetized tracking device did not deprive the defendant of “dominion and control” of his vehicle and therefore, the Ninth Circuit concluded that no seizure occurred. 186 F.3d at 1127.

Defendant failed to show standing to contest the search of the motel room he was sitting in. He did not show he was to be an overnight guest; he did not even know who rented the room or show a connection to that person. United States v. Clark, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105684 (D. Kan. November 12, 2009):

At the suppression hearing, defendant produced absolutely no evidence of standing. When officers entered, defendant was sitting casually on the bed. The room was registered to a “Boisey Barefield.” Defendant produced no evidence of Barefield’s identity, and failed to show any relationship to Barefield, or any invitation from Barefield to visit the motel room. Defendant did not show that he even knew Barefield. Furthermore, defendant did not produce evidence or testimony showing how long he had been in the motel room, what his purpose was in visiting the motel room, or what his relationship was to the other women who were present in the room. In fact, no evidence was produced showing that anyone in the room at the time of the search was registered or listed as an occupant at the motel. For a person to be a “social guest,” he must demonstrate a “degree of acceptance into the household” and an “ongoing and meaningful connection to [the] home.” Defendant has not done so.