Motion to reconsider installation of GPS device denied, and the judge was not amused that defense counsel just didn\u2019t seem to get it. United States v. Hersman, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174831 (S.D. W.Va. December 12, 2013)*:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for reconsideration. As discussed in the Court’s prior rulings, in United States v. Jones, — U.S. –, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012), the Supreme Court held for the first time that the Government’s installation of a global positioning surveillance (“GPS”) tracking device on a target’s vehicle constitutes a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Defendant argues that since Jones was decided, a “growing number of courts have rejected the government’s good faith excuse” and have suppressed GPS evidence. Defendant cites United States v. Katzin, 732 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2013) and four district court cases in support of his view.<\/p>\n
Although Defendant quietly pays lip service to the fact that each of these cases concerns warrantless installations of GPS devices by law enforcement officers, he does not let that salient fact inform his analysis. Rather, he contends that because the officers in this case failed to comply with certain requirements of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and because there were certain irregularities with the presentation of the state search warrant to the state circuit judge, it is as if the officers never bothered to obtain a warrant at all. Engaging in this fiction, Defendant concludes that Katzin and the handful of district court cases are thus persuasive. <\/p>\n
Defendant’s argument once again falls short and displays a misunderstanding of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 909 (1984) and its progeny. Defendant’s case is not a case where law enforcement officers, during a time of unsettled or newly-established law, carelessly slapped a GPS device on a target’s car without judicial authorization and later pleaded ignorance and begged for mercy at a suppression hearing. Rather, here, the officers, with the assistance of a prosecuting attorney, applied for and obtained a search warrant from a judge before installing the device.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Prior post here<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading