United States v. Harry Katzin (2013)

See United States v. Fisher, --- F.3d ---, 2014 WL 888522, at *4 (6th Cir. Mar. 7, 2014); United States v. Ransfer, 743 F.3d 766 , 777 (11th Cir. 2014); United States v. Aguiar, 737 F.3d 251, 262 (2d Cir. 2013); United States v. Sparks, 711 F.3d 58, 63 (1st Cir. 2013); United States v. Andres, 703 F.3d 828, 835 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Pineda-Moreno, 688 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2012); but see United States v. Katzin, 732 F.3d 187, 206-10 (3d Cir. 2013), reh’g gran…

But see United States v. Katzin, 732 F.3d 187, 208 (3d Cir.2013) Finally, we note a wealth of persuasive authority suggesting that, before Jones , courts actually did recognize Michael as binding in the GPS context.

United States v. Katzin, 732 F.3d 187, 191 (3d Cir.2013), vacated by United States v. Katzin, No. 12-2548, 2013 WL 7033666 (3d Cir. Dec. 12, 2013) (granting rehearing en banc).

However, the Third Circuit recently found no good faith reliance exception for a warrantless GPS search because there was no clear, binding precedent in the Third Circuit, United States v. Katzin, 732 F.3d 187, 206-8 (3d Cir. 2013) (noting the Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth circuits held the warrantless use of a GPS tracking device was not unconstitutional, but the D.C. Circuit did find it violated the Fourth Amendment).13 Judge Van Antwerpen concurred that Jones requires…

United States v. Katzin, 732 F.3d 187, 210 (3d Cir.2013).

United 16 States v. Katzin, 732 F.3d 187, 210 (3d Cir. 2013).

However, the Third Circuit recently found no good faith reliance exception for a warrantless GPS search because there was no clear, binding precedent in the Third Circuit, United States v. Katzin, 732 F.3d 187, 206-8 (3d Cir.2013) reh’g en banc granted, opinion vacated, 12-2548, 2013 WL 7033666 (3d Cir. Dec. 12, 2013) (finding Knotts was not clear binding precedent because of “(1) the lack of a physical intrusion ..., (2) the placement by police of the beepers inside contain…

United States v. Katzin, 732 F.3d 187, 210 (3d Cir. 2013).

United States v. Katzin, 732 F.3d 187, 210 (3d Cir.2013).

United States v. Katzin, 732 F.3d 187, 210 (3d Cir. 2013).

Maynard, 615 F.3d at 558 . 4 Aguiar stated that in the aftermath of Jones, there was a split in the circuits, as United States v. Katzin, 732 F.3d 187, 210 (3d Cir. 2013), “adopted a much stricter rule” declining to apply the good-faith exception because Knotts and Karo were distinguishable based on the lack of physical intrusion in those cases.

But that it was “ ‘widely and reasonably understood to stand for the proposition that 4 Aguiar stated that in the aftermath of Jones, there was a split in the circuits, as United States v. Katzin, 732 F.3d 187, 210 (3d Cir. 2013), “adopted a much stricter rule” declining to apply the good-faith exception because Knotts and Karo were distinguishable based on the lack of physical intrusion in those cases.

See United States v. Ortiz, 878 F.Supp.2d 515, 538 (E.D.Pa.2012) (observing that “the intrusion on Fourth Amendment privacy interests occasioned by GPS tracker installation and monitoring is substantial” and that there were no legitimate law enforcement needs to use such devices beyond the normal need for law enforcement and rejecting the government’s argument that reasonable suspicion was sufficient to support installation and use of GPS tracking device); United States v. K…

For a discussion of the evolution in tracking technology, see United States v. Katzin, 732 F.3d 187, 191-92 (3d Cir.), reh’g granted, 2013 WL 7033666 (3d Cir. Dec. 12, 2013). .

The court in Katzin reasoned that “Davis [v. United States, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011) ] extends good faith protection only to acts that are explicitly sanctioned by clear and well-settled precedent, and neither Knotts nor Karo sanction the type of intrusion at issue in this case,” and, therefore, “law enforcement’s reliance on the beeper cases, standing on its own, cannot sufficiently insulates the GPS search in this case from the exclusionary rule.” U…

See Knotts, 460 U.S. at 284 , 103 S.Ct. 1081 (mentioning “twenty-four hour surveillance of any citizen of this country”); United States v. Katzin, 732 F.3d 187, 191-92, 205 (3d Cir. 2013) (holding warrantless GPS tracking of vehicle for several days generating “highly accurate record of the tracker’s whereabouts throughout its period of operation” unjustified), vacated on grant of reh’g en banc, 2013 WL 7033666 (3d Cir. Dec. 12, 2013); United States v. Pineda-Moreno, 617 F.3…

See Katzin, 732 F.3d at 209-11 (holding that the Davis good-faith exception did not apply, but considering next “whether law enforcement personnel acted with an ‘objectively reasonable good-faith belief that their conduct [was] lawful’ ” by “undertaking] the balancing 'test outlined in ...