Robbery Suspects Apprehended By Police GPS Use Without Warrant

US v. Katzin, 732 F. 3d 187 (2013), involved the warrantless placing of a GPS tracking device by police on the vehicle of brothers suspected in the robbery of multiple Rite Aid pharmacies in New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland. Harry Katzin and his van were seen in the proximity of several of the pharmacies where the robberies took place. Using the GPS device, police tracked the Katzin brothers van as they drove to a Rite-Aid where a robbery took place then stopped them shortly thereafter. Evidence gathered during the traffic stop, which resulted from the use of the GPS device, led to their arrest. The device was installed on December 14, 2012 and the Katzins were apprehended on December 16, 2012, limiting the use to approximately 48 hours. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2914 (2011), 564 U.S. ___ (2011) holding that evidence discovered while police were conducting searches in good faith reliance on legalities at the time of the search. In U.S. v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, 565 U.S. ___ (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court held that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle constituted trespass and therefore required a warrant but never addressed whether the warrantless tracking utilizing the GPS device was unreasonable. Justice Steven Breyer's comments during Jones likened the ability of police to monitor individuals 24 hours per day at will using GPS devices to George Orwell's novel 1984. In Katzin, the brothers' suppression motion was granted by a District Judge hearing the matter and government appealed to the Third Circuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that heard arguments in the case held that any evidence obtained through the use of the GPS tracking device must be suppressed. The prosecution maintained that, with probable cause to believe the vehicle is involved in criminal activity, no warrant should be required as the Fourth Amendment requires either a warrant or probable cause. The prosecution further argued that while attached to the vehicle, the device provided no information beyond what could be observed by simple visual surveillance. The ACLU argued that Jones found the original attachment of the GPS device to require a warrant, without consideration of whether limiting the time of the tracking would affect the need for a warrant. The ACLU further argued that the ease and cost-effectiveness of using a GPS device will render law enforcement likely to track individuals even where it there is no reasonableness. Without the requirement of a warrant, police could use GPS devices to gather information and use that information to establish probable cause. Ultimately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that law enforcement officers must have a valid warrant before installing a GPS tracking device on a suspect's vehicle. If you are facing charges of robbery, the penalties can be severe and you should obtain experienced criminal defense counsel immediately. For further information regarding robbery, warrantless searches, burglary or other serious criminal offenses in New Jersey, visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Will Police in NJ Be Permitted to Inspect Cell Phone Contents At Accident Scenes?

If a newly introduced bill relating to NJ motor vehicle safety is passed, police officers will be able to confiscate cell phones under certain circumstances relating to auto accidents in order to assess motor vehicle penalties. The bill also increases penalties for texting while driving. The bill (S-2783) was introduced May 20, 2013 by Senator James W. Holzapfel (D-Ocean). As introduced, the bill permits any police officer coming to the scene of a motor vehicle accident resulting in death, bodily injury, or property damage to confiscate the driver's cell phone if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the driver was using the cell phone while driving. The bill includes that the officer may review the cell phone's CALL history, however, the pertinent statute Section 39:4-97.3 of the NJ Motor Vehicle Code defines "Use" of a cell phone as including, "but not be limited to, talking or listening to another person on the telephone, text messaging, or sending an electronic. This means police will be reading text messages and emails, viewing installed applications ("aps") on the phone, memos and anything else they wish to view. This will permit the police the right to trounce citizen's rights against unreasonable search and seizure each time a motor vehicle accident occurs. The bill requires no warrant showing probable cause and merely permits police to make a judgment call as to whether the driver was "operating" a cell phone as well as whether a hands-free device or feature was in use at the time of the accident. Even in the event police determine there was no use of the cell phone, there is nothing in the bill limiting their use of any information obtained from the phone for other purposes such as criminal complaints against the driver. Also, it can be assumed the phones of any passengers in the vehicle will also be searched as police claim that a witness saw the driver pass the phone to a passenger immediately following the accident. Given the use of passwords, swipe patterns, voice and face recognition software and other means of protecting the information on personal cell phones, information contained in cell phones is considered private and falls within the expectation of privacy contemplated under the Fourth Amendment. Other penalties include a fine of $100 for calls, $300 for texts, 2 points and suspension of driving privileges for 3 months. If you have been charged with use of a cell phone while driving or face criminal charges as a result of unreasonable search and seizure in NJ, you should immediately obtain an experienced criminal defense attorney to protect your rights. For more information on protecting your rights if charged with motor vehicle offenses or other crimes in NJ visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and is not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.