N.D.Tex.: Officer’s failure to learn about Jones GPS ruling warranted suppression; “When police exhibit ‘deliberate,’ ‘reckless,’ or ‘grossly negligent’ disregard for Fourth Amendment rights, the benefits of exclusion tend to outweigh the costs.”–Davis

The officer’s failure to learn about Jones justified suppression of planting a GPS device nearly two years after it was decided. Officers have a duty to keep up with the law to claim good faith. Defendant’s disclaiming a cell phone denied him standing to challenge its search. United States v. Estrada, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90097 (N.D.Tex. July 2, 2015):

“When police exhibit ‘deliberate,’ ‘reckless,’ or ‘grossly negligent’ disregard for Fourth Amendment rights, the benefits of exclusion tend to outweigh the costs.” Davis v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 2422, 180 L.Ed.2d 285, (2011) citing Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 129 S.Ct. 695, 172 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009). Although the evidence here does not show Agent Lindley purposefully or knowingly violated defendant ESTRADA’s constitutional rights, the installation of the tracking device without a search warrant, based upon Jones, supra, was an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Good faith ordinarily applies when the law in effect at the time of a search allowed the search but subsequent case law classified the search as unconstitutional. Officers who rely on what was binding precedent when conducting a search, will not have such evidence excluded based upon a subsequent change in the law. See Davis v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 2429, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011).

Here, the law in effect when the tracking device authorization was obtained and the device was installed required a search warrant. If we consider police misconduct to be defined as a reckless failure to obtain adequate information, suppression must follow. Agent Lindley testified he did not check with a prosecutor or anyone else before obtaining state court authorization to place the GPS device on defendant’s vehicle. There has been no showing that exigent circumstances or some other obstacle prevented independent research or obtaining prosecutorial advice. Further, “Responsible law-enforcement officers will take care to learn ‘what is required of them’ under Fourth Amendment precedent and will conform their conduct to these rules.” Davis, 131 S.Ct. at 2429, citing Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 599, 126 S.Ct. 2159, 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006). In other words, law enforcement officials have a duty to stay abreast of current law or at least have a duty to reasonably do so. The failure of the police to be knowledgeable as to the change in the law almost 22 months earlier, disqualifies justification of the installation and use of the tracking device based upon good faith. The tracking device information, in the form of the address reports, violated defendant ESTRADA’s Fourth Amendment rights and her motion to suppress this information should be GRANTED. However, this ruling does not extend to the other evidence, including the evidence discovered at 2407 North Lake during the search on January 8, 2014, and that issue is discussed below.