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

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests