New York Law Review

Tag: GPS tracking

  • People v. Wells, 21 N.Y.3d 182 (2013): Use of GPS Tracking Devices and Verdict Sheet Annotations

    People v. Wells, 21 N.Y.3d 182 (2013)

    Warrantless GPS tracking of a vehicle constitutes an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment, but the admission of evidence derived from such tracking may be harmless error if the evidence is redundant to legally obtained evidence and there is overwhelming independent evidence of guilt; verdict sheets can contain locations of offenses to distinguish counts for the jury.

    Summary

    Defendant was convicted of multiple counts related to a forged credit card scheme. The prosecution used evidence obtained from a GPS device placed on the defendant’s car without a warrant, as well as wiretap evidence. The trial court provided the jury with a verdict sheet that included the locations where the offenses occurred. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that while the GPS tracking was unlawful, its admission was harmless error because the evidence was redundant. The Court also found the verdict sheet annotations permissible as they aided in distinguishing the numerous counts for the jury.

    Facts

    Defendant and co-defendants engaged in a scheme to steal property using forged credit cards. They acquired credit card numbers from legitimate accounts, placed the stolen information on blank cards using a reader/writer machine, and made purchases at stores in Manhattan. Investigators obtained a warrant to wiretap the defendant’s cell phones, which revealed his activities. Due to difficulties with visual surveillance, investigators placed a GPS device on the defendant’s vehicle without obtaining a warrant.

    Procedural History

    A grand jury indicted the defendant on 61 counts. The case proceeded to trial on 26 of those counts. The defendant was found guilty on 20 counts. The defendant moved for a new trial based on the GPS evidence, which was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the trial court erred by submitting to the jury a verdict sheet that contained the locations of the designated offenses, violating CPL 310.20(2)?

    2. Whether law enforcement’s warrantless installation of a GPS tracking device on the defendant’s vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment?

    Holding

    1. No, because the annotations aided the jury in distinguishing between the multiple counts and fell within the statute’s purpose.

    2. Yes, because under People v. Weaver and United States v. Jones, the use of a GPS device to monitor a vehicle’s movements constitutes a search, requiring a warrant. However, the violation was harmless error.

    Court’s Reasoning

    Regarding the verdict sheet, the Court distinguished People v. Miller, which prohibited verdict sheets from including legal instructions. Here, the annotations merely identified the stores or banks involved in each count, helping the jury differentiate them. This fell within the permissible scope of CPL 310.20(2), which allows for the inclusion of “the dates, names of complainants or specific statutory language” to distinguish between counts. The Court reasoned that the stores’ names were essentially proxies for the “complainants.”

    Regarding the GPS device, the Court acknowledged that under People v. Weaver and United States v. Jones, attaching a GPS device to a vehicle constitutes a search and requires a warrant. The Court stated, “When the police want to place a GPS device on a suspect’s automobile, they must obtain a warrant first.” However, the Court held that the admission of the GPS evidence was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. The GPS information was redundant because the investigators had already learned about the defendant’s destination (a Best Buy store) through legally obtained wiretap evidence. Furthermore, the People presented overwhelming independent evidence of the defendant’s guilt, including surveillance video, sales receipts, and eyewitness testimony. As the court stated, “there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to defendant’s conviction.”

  • Cunningham v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 20 N.Y.3d 513 (2013): GPS Tracking of Employee’s Car and Workplace Exception

    Cunningham v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 20 N.Y.3d 513 (2013)

    A public employer’s warrantless GPS tracking of an employee’s car is a search, subject to constitutional reasonableness, and must be reasonably limited in scope to work-related activities to be permissible.

    Summary

    The New York State Department of Labor suspected an employee, Cunningham, of falsifying time records and attached a GPS device to his car without a warrant to track his movements. The Court of Appeals held that while the GPS tracking constituted a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and the New York Constitution, it fell within the workplace exception to the warrant requirement. However, the Court found the search unreasonable in its scope because it tracked Cunningham’s movements 24/7, including evenings, weekends, and vacation time, which was excessively intrusive. As a result, evidence obtained solely from the GPS tracking was suppressed, and the case was remanded for a redetermination of the appropriate penalty.

    Facts

    The New York State Department of Labor began investigating Cunningham, the Director of Staff and Organizational Development, for alleged unauthorized absences and falsified time records. After Cunningham evaded an investigator, the Department referred the matter to the Office of the State Inspector General. The Inspector General attached a GPS device to Cunningham’s car without his knowledge while it was parked near his office. The device tracked all of the car’s movements for a month, including evenings, weekends, and vacation time. The department then used the GPS data to support disciplinary charges against Cunningham, alleging discrepancies between his reported work hours and his car’s location.

    Procedural History

    The Department of Labor brought disciplinary charges against Cunningham. A Hearing Officer sustained 11 charges, four of which relied on GPS evidence. The Commissioner of Labor affirmed the Hearing Officer’s determination and terminated Cunningham’s employment. Cunningham filed a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the termination. The Appellate Division confirmed the Commissioner’s determination. Cunningham appealed to the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the warrantless GPS tracking of a public employee’s vehicle by their employer constitutes an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, § 12 of the New York Constitution when the tracking occurs 24/7, including during non-work hours and vacation time, even if a reasonable suspicion of misconduct exists.

    Holding

    No, because while the GPS tracking of an employee’s car falls under the workplace exception to the warrant requirement, the search was unreasonable in its scope due to its excessively intrusive nature of tracking Cunningham’s movements 24/7 for a month. The evidence obtained solely from the GPS data should be suppressed.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court acknowledged that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and tracking its movements constitutes a search under both the Fourth Amendment and the New York Constitution, citing People v. Weaver and United States v. Jones. However, the Court found that the “workplace exception” to the warrant requirement, as established in O’Connor v. Ortega and Matter of Caruso v. Ward, applied in this case because the employer had a reasonable suspicion of employee misconduct. The Court reasoned that tracking the location of an employee’s car during working hours is analogous to other workplace searches deemed permissible without a warrant.

    Despite the applicability of the workplace exception, the Court determined that the scope of the search was unreasonable. The GPS tracking was deemed “excessively intrusive” because it monitored Cunningham’s movements at all times, including evenings, weekends, and during his vacation. The court stated, “The search will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the nature of the misconduct.” The Court emphasized that the State failed to make a reasonable effort to limit the tracking to business hours, despite having the ability to remove the device. The Court held that, “Where an employer conducts a GPS search without making a reasonable effort to avoid tracking an employee outside of business hours, the search as a whole must be considered unreasonable.”

  • People v. Weaver, 12 N.Y.3d 433 (2009): Warrantless GPS Tracking Violates New York Constitution

    12 N.Y.3d 433 (2009)

    Under the New York State Constitution, the prolonged warrantless use of a GPS device to track a vehicle’s movements on public roads constitutes an unreasonable search, requiring suppression of the evidence obtained.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals held that the warrantless placement and use of a GPS tracking device on a suspect’s vehicle for 65 days violated the suspect’s rights under the New York State Constitution. The court reasoned that continuous GPS surveillance constitutes an unreasonable search because it reveals a detailed profile of a person’s movements and associations, far exceeding what could be obtained through visual surveillance. This level of intrusion requires a warrant based on probable cause.

    Facts

    State Police Investigator placed a GPS tracking device (a “Q-ball”) on the defendant Weaver’s van while it was parked on a public street, without obtaining a warrant. The device monitored the van’s location continuously for 65 days. The GPS data was used as evidence against Weaver in a burglary case, placing his van near the scene of the crime.

    Procedural History

    The County Court denied Weaver’s motion to suppress the GPS data. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding that there was no Fourth Amendment violation. A dissenting justice granted leave to appeal. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, granted the motion to suppress the GPS evidence, and ordered a new trial.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the warrantless placement and use of a GPS tracking device on a vehicle to monitor its movements on public roads for an extended period constitutes an unreasonable search in violation of Article I, § 12 of the New York State Constitution.

    Holding

    Yes, because the prolonged, warrantless use of a GPS device to track a vehicle’s movements constitutes an unreasonable search under the New York State Constitution, requiring a warrant supported by probable cause.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court grounded its decision on the right to privacy guaranteed by the New York State Constitution, noting that this right extends beyond protection of property interests and encompasses the right to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion. While individuals have a diminished expectation of privacy in their vehicles on public roads, this does not equate to a complete surrender of privacy. The court distinguished this case from United States v. Knotts, where the Supreme Court upheld the use of a beeper to track a container of chloroform, emphasizing that GPS technology is “vastly different and exponentially more sophisticated and powerful technology” than the beeper used in Knotts. GPS surveillance provides a comprehensive record of a person’s movements, associations, and activities, revealing far more than visual surveillance could. The court noted, “What the technology yields and records with breathtaking quality and quantity is a highly detailed profile, not simply of where we go, but by easy inference, of our associations—political, religious, amicable and amorous, to name only a few—and of the pattern of our professional and avocational pursuits.” The court acknowledged that “searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment— subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions” (quoting Katz v. United States). The placement of the GPS device for 65 days did not meet any exception to the warrant requirement. The court explicitly based its holding on the New York State Constitution, leaving the federal constitutional question open. Citing Delaware v. Prouse, the court stated “An individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation…Nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles”. The court recognized that technological advances can easily produce abuse and found the risk unacceptable. Therefore, it held that absent exigent circumstances, the installation and use of a GPS device to monitor an individual’s whereabouts requires a warrant supported by probable cause.