OH8: Defense counsel ineffective for not raising GPS tracking issue

While the law is in flux, defense counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress GPS evidence because there is a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on that motion because of Maynard from the D.C. Circuit. State v. Jefferson, 2011 Ohio 4637, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 3849 (8th Dist. September 15, 2011):

[*P21] The Fourth Amendment issues surrounding GPS surveillance are not new. Both Ohio and federal courts have addressed this issue. In light of the numerous cases on this issue, especially Maynard, we conclude that not only should Jefferson’s trial counsel have filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless installation and use of a GPS device on his car, but there is a strong likelihood such motion would have been granted. If granted, the State would have had no evidence to link Jefferson to the crime and he would have been acquitted.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.