VA holds en banc in Foltz that even if GPS tracking required a warrant, their eyewitness observation of a sexual assault was not fruit of the poisonous tree

The Virginia Court of Appeals en banc reaffirms the panel decision in Foltz v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 107, 706 S.E.2d 914 (2011), previously posted here, where GPS surveillance was conducted of defendant’s employer’s work truck that he was driving. When he showed a pattern of conduct that strongly suggested a sexual assault was coming, they swooped in and arrested him in the act. What they saw in public was attenuated from any possible Fourth Amendment violation.

From our review of the record on appeal, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress the eyewitness testimony of the police officers. We reach this conclusion without addressing whether the use of the GPS device, attached to employer’s van assigned to appellant, without first obtaining a search warrant, violated appellant’s rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Virginia Constitution.

The panel decision was previously posted here September 7, 2010.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.