Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

10-1473 U.S. v. Cuevas-Perez

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//April 28, 2011//

10-1473 U.S. v. Cuevas-Perez

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//April 28, 2011//

Listen to this article

Search and Seizure
GPS tracking devices

It does not violate the Fourth Amendment for police officers to place a GPS tracking device on a suspect’s car.
“The aspects of the search in Maynard that affected the court’s decision are absent here. The 28-day surveillance in Maynard was much lengthier than the 60-hour surveillance in the case before us. Moreover, the Maynard court repeatedly distinguished the surveillance at issue there from surveillance during a single journey. See Maynard, 615 F.3d at 558, 560, 562, 565. For instance, the court stated, ‘[s]urveillance that reveals only what is already exposed to the public—such as a person’s movements during a single journey—is not a search.’ Id. at 565 (citing Knotts, 460 U.S. at 285). The case before us, so far as the record reveals, involves such a ‘single-trip’ duration of surveillance. Unlike in Maynard, the surveillance here was not lengthy and did not expose, or risk exposing, the twists and turns of Cuevas-Perez’s life, including possible criminal activities, for a long period.”

Affirmed.

10-1473 U.S. v. Cuevas-Perez

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Murphy, J., Cudahy, J.

Full Text

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests