Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

US Supreme Court’s GPS ruling to get first test

By: DOLAN MEDIA NEWSWIRES//January 31, 2012//

US Supreme Court’s GPS ruling to get first test

By: DOLAN MEDIA NEWSWIRES//January 31, 2012//

Listen to this article

By Donna Walter
Dolan Newswires

A federal case in St. Louis will be one of the first in the nation to test the application of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision declaring the use of GPS tracking a search under the Fourth Amendment.

Whether that means government officials must get a search warrant to install or monitor individuals using a Global Position Satellite tracker remains to be seen.

Criminal charges against Fred W. Robinson were based in part on surveillance conducted through the use of a GPS tracker that agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation attached to the undercarriage of his car.

The data transmitted between Jan. 22 and March 17, 2010, led to five counts essentially alleging Robinson was a so-called “ghost” employee of the St. Louis City Treasurer’s Office who during the calendar years 2006 through 2010 received an annual salary of about $35,360. To the agents, this data corroborated the allegation that Robinson’s time sheets were false, according to a report by U.S. Magistrate Judge David Noce.

Robinson filed a motion to suppress the GPS evidence, but in his Dec. 27 report and recommendations to U.S. District Judge Audrey Fleissig, Noce concluded that neither the installation nor the use of the GPS tracker constituted a search. He relied on the 8th Circuit’s 2010 decision in U.S. v. Marquez, which upheld the defendant’s drug conviction and said that the Fourth Amendment wasn’t implicated where law enforcement used a GPS to track the defendant for six months without a search warrant.

But on Jan. 23 the U. S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in U.S. v. Jones, finding that installing and monitoring a GPS device to a suspect’s vehicle constituted a search. The Supreme Court, however, did not explicitly state that law enforcement must obtain a search warrant before installing or using a GPS tracker.

Noting that Jones was still pending before the Supreme Court, Robinson’s lawyer, federal Public Defender Felicia A. Jones, objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations by the Jan. 13 deadline. And after the Supreme Court issues its ruling, Assistant U.S. Attorney Hal Goldsmith filed an unopposed motion for additional briefing of the GPS issue in light of Jones.

Fleissig scheduled a hearing on Robinson’s objections for Feb. 17. Robinson’s brief addressing the impact of Jones is due Feb. 2, and the prosecutor’s response is due Feb. 13.

The case is U.S. v. Robinson, 4:11-cr-361.

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