{"id":23352,"date":"2014-10-01T20:17:09","date_gmt":"2014-10-02T01:17:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/?p=23352"},"modified":"2014-10-01T20:19:11","modified_gmt":"2014-10-02T01:19:11","slug":"third-circuit-rules-on-use-of-gps-technology","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/2014\/10\/third-circuit-rules-on-use-of-gps-technology\/","title":{"rendered":"Third Circuit Rules on Use of GPS Technology"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>This short post is not the promised second part of my intended <a href=\"http:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/2014\/09\/09\/what-the-seventh-circuit-did-during-your-summer-vacation\/\">series<\/a> on what the Seventh Circuit did during your summer vacation. But, it may interest those of you who follow developments in the criminal law.\u00a0\u00a0 In a much-anticipated decision with parallels to <em>United States v. Brown<\/em>, 744 F.3d 474, 476 (7th Cir. 2014), the <em>en banc<\/em> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held today that pre-<em>Jones<\/em> warrantless use of GPS to collect data about a suspect did not require suppression of the GPS-evidence under the exclusionary rule.\u00a0 The case is <em>United States v. Katzin<\/em>, No. 12-2548 (3d Cir. Oct. 1, 2014).<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>According to the Court, officers using GPS technology to collect data without a warrant before the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in <em>Jones<\/em> could rely in good faith on the Supreme Court\u2019s pre-<em>Jones<\/em> decisions in <em>Knotts<\/em> and <em>Karo<\/em>.\u00a0 These decisions involved older \u201cbeeper\u201d technology. It was not necessary to a finding of good faith that there be binding appellate precedent directly addressing the newer GPS technology.<\/p>\n<p>The <em>Katzin<\/em> opinion generally emphasizes the breadth of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule and puts forward an interpretation of the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in <em>Davis v. United States<\/em>, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011), that is consistent with such a broad reading.\u00a0 Indeed, according to a dissenting opinion, the decision \u201cexpands the good faith exception to the point of eviscerating the exclusionary rule altogether\u201d and will \u201cembolden\u201d law enforcement officers to behave as though the good faith exception \u201cwill extricate [them] from nearly any evidentiary conundrum.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This short post is not the promised second part of my intended series on what the Seventh Circuit did during your summer vacation. But, it may interest those of you who follow developments in the criminal law.\u00a0\u00a0 In a much-anticipated decision with parallels to United States v. Brown, 744 F.3d 474, 476 (7th Cir. 2014), [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":179,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ocean_post_layout":"","ocean_both_sidebars_style":"","ocean_both_sidebars_content_width":0,"ocean_both_sidebars_sidebars_width":0,"ocean_sidebar":"","ocean_second_sidebar":"","ocean_disable_margins":"enable","ocean_add_body_class":"","ocean_shortcode_before_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_after_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_before_header":"","ocean_shortcode_after_header":"","ocean_has_shortcode":"","ocean_shortcode_after_title":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_bottom":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_bottom":"","ocean_display_top_bar":"default","ocean_display_header":"default","ocean_header_style":"","ocean_center_header_left_menu":"","ocean_custom_header_template":"","ocean_custom_logo":0,"ocean_custom_retina_logo":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_height":0,"ocean_header_custom_menu":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_family":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_subset":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_size":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_unit":"px","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_line_height":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_unit":"","ocean_menu_typo_spacing":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_unit":"","ocean_menu_link_color":"","ocean_menu_link_color_hover":"","ocean_menu_link_color_active":"","ocean_menu_link_background":"","ocean_menu_link_hover_background":"","ocean_menu_link_active_background":"","ocean_menu_social_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_links_color":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_color":"","ocean_disable_title":"default","ocean_disable_heading":"default","ocean_post_title":"","ocean_post_subheading":"","ocean_post_title_style":"","ocean_post_title_background_color":"","ocean_post_title_background":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_image_position":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_attachment":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_repeat":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_size":"","ocean_post_title_height":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay":0.5,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay_color":"","ocean_disable_breadcrumbs":"default","ocean_breadcrumbs_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_separator_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_hover_color":"","ocean_display_footer_widgets":"default","ocean_display_footer_bottom":"default","ocean_custom_footer_template":"","ocean_post_oembed":"","ocean_post_self_hosted_media":"","ocean_post_video_embed":"","ocean_link_format":"","ocean_link_format_target":"self","ocean_quote_format":"","ocean_quote_format_link":"post","ocean_gallery_link_images":"on","ocean_gallery_id":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[28,122],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23352","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-criminal-law-process","category-public","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23352","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/179"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23352"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23352\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23352"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23352"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23352"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}