{"id":7131,"date":"2012-05-15T20:47:49","date_gmt":"2012-05-15T15:18:41","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-05-15T15:18:41","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=7131","title":{"rendered":"D.Nev.: Pre-<em>Jones<\/em> GPS surveillance still not excluded under <em>Davis<\/em> &#8220;exception&#8221; to exclusionary rule"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>GPS surveillance in the Ninth Circuit was under binding precedent before <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/11pdf\/10-1259.pdf\">Jones<\/a>, so <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/10pdf\/09-11328.pdf\">Davis<\/a> applies. United States v. Fata, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66759 (D. Nev. March 15, 2012):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Consequently, even assuming non-compliance with ATF regulations, the Court finds that use of the GPS device in this case was lawful under <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=10869162618709496300&amp;q=Pineda-Moreno+&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,4\">Pineda-Moreno<\/a> at the time it was installed and monitored. <\/p>\n<p>Further, consistent with the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision in <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/10pdf\/09-11328.pdf\">Davis v. United States<\/a>, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011), the Court finds that the purpose of the exclusionary rule would not be served in this instance by suppression based solely on placement of the GPS device because placement of the GPS device and the subsequent monitoring was done in reasonable reliance on then binding appellate precedent as announced in Pineda-Moreno.<\/p>\n<p>As a result of the Court&#8217;s finding and the decision in <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/10pdf\/09-11328.pdf\">Davis<\/a>, even though the installation and use of the GPS device to assist agents in initiating their surveillance on May 14, 2011 through May 15, 2011 did violate Defendants&#8217; Fourth Amendment rights, none of the information obtained as a result thereof is subject to suppression. In particular, the surveillance evidence obtained by agents on May 15, 2011, when they observed and overheard conversations during the purchases of firearms at the Gun Store and the gun show will not be suppressed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=7131\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7131","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7131","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=7131"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7131\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7131"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7131"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7131"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}