Good Faith Exception Applied to Information Obtained through GPS Device Installed Without a Warrant

USA v. Ransfer, No. 12-12956, from SDFla

Senior District Judge Baylson (EDPa), joined by Judge Martin and Judge Jordan

Summary: In this revised opinion, substituted for 743 F.3d 766, the panel rejected the defendant’s challenge to the admission of evidence obtained through the installation and use of a GPS tracking device without a warrant.  Although the search was a Fourth Amendment violation under United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012), the good-faith exception for reliance on clear, binding precedent pre-dating Jones applied, Davis v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2419 (2011).  Within the Eleventh Circuit, United States v. Michael, 645 F.2d 252 (5th Cir. 1981), constituted binding precedent holding that the installation of a tracking beeper was not unconstitutional even if the installation was a search, because it did not violate any privacy concerns. The panel also addressed a number of minor evidentiary challenges related to expert testimony, hearsay, and limits on closing argument time. 

The panel ultimately affirmed the majority of the defendant’s convictions, although it vacated two of the convictions because of insufficient evidence.

 Note: The revised opinion modified the good-faith exception discussion on pages 13-18 of the revised slip opinion.  The original opinion only cited Michael in a footnote and expressed agreement with the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in United States v. Andres, 703 F.3d 828.  It also attempted to factually distinguish the Third Circuit’s contrary opinion in United States v. Katzin, 732 F.2d 187, reh’g en banc granted, opinion vacated by 12-2458.  The revised opinion states that Michael itself is sufficient support for the panel’s holding, and simply distinguishes Katzin on the basis that Michael was binding pre-Jones precedent.

 You can bet that when this opinion was circulated to the other judges of the Eleventh Circuit, at least some of them (perhaps Judge Hull or Judge Marcus) were uncomfortable with the panel’s opinion saying more than it needed to say.  In light of Michael, at least one other active circuit judge felt there was no need to adopt the reasoning of Andres, or to distinguish the reasoning of Katzin.