{"id":7043,"date":"2012-07-15T18:15:23","date_gmt":"2012-04-27T10:25:57","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-04-27T10:25:57","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=7043","title":{"rendered":"SC: GPS tracking was unreasonable, but police were following and saw a traffic violation and decided to stop"},"content":{"rendered":"

Warrantless installation of a GPS tracker on defendant\u2019s vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment under Jones, but it wasn\u2019t the cause of defendant\u2019s stop. He was being followed, and committed a traffic offense that led to his stop, and a drug dog was ultimately called in. State v. Adams<\/a>, 397 S.C. 481, 725 S.E.2d 523 (2012):<\/p>\n

Here, the tracking device was installed while Adams’s vehicle was parked in a public parking garage, and the device was used to monitor the vehicle’s movements while it was on public streets and highways. Under Jones, the Department’s installation of the device on Adams’s vehicle and use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements constituted a “search.” Therefore, the Department’s failure to obtain a warrant made that search unreasonable and resulted in a violation of Adams’s constitutional rights. Nevertheless, we must still determine whether that violation required suppression of the drugs seized from Adams’s person. For the reasons below, we find it did not.<\/p>\n

. . .<\/p>\n

Here, Sergeant Blair had probable cause to stop Adams’s vehicle because he witnessed Adams commit two traffic violations. The officers acted reasonably in instructing Adams to step out of the vehicle while they waited for a license and registration report. Sergeant Blair was also permitted to walk his drug dog around the vehicle while waiting for the completion of Adams’s license and registration check. The first alert occurred a mere five to six minutes after the traffic stop began, and no evidence in the record indicates the drug sniff extended the duration of the stop. Consequently, the officers’ conduct up to that point was within constitutional bounds. Whether the drugs were admissible depends upon whether the resulting pat-down complied with Adams’s Fourth Amendment rights.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/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-7043","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7043","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=7043"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7043\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7043"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7043"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7043"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}