Idaho Appeals Court Allows Warrantless GPS Tracking of Motorists

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper
idaho appeals court allows warrantless gps tracking of motorists

Another state court of appeals on Friday saw no problem with police attaching a GPS tracking device to an automobile without first obtaining a warrant from a judge. Idaho’s second highest court denied the appeal of Filip Danney who was convicted on marijuana charges based on evidence gained from the spying device.

In March 2007, Ada County Detective Matt Taddicken received an anonymous tip about Danney and decided to investigate. Two months later, he went to Danney’s work and placed a GPS tracker on Danney’s parked car. Within a few days, the device showed Danney was returning to Boise from a trip to Arcata, California. This was enough to have Taddicken order Danney stopped and searched. Ada County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Matthew Clifford claimed that Danney failed to “signal for five seconds prior to changing lanes,” and used this as a reason to pull him over. While Danney was detained, a drug dog was brought in to search the vehicle. The dog found the marijuana.

At trial, Danney objected to the stop on the grounds that an insufficient scientific foundation was laid for the GPS evidence. On appeal, he attempted to argue that the warrantless search violated his constitutional rights, but the appellate court rejected his assertion citing the three-part test created by a July decision of the state supreme court.

“We conclude that Danney’s argument that the warrantless use of a GPS device to track his vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment does not demonstrate fundamental error because the second prong, requiring that the error ‘plainly exists,’ was not met,” Chief Judge Karen L. Lansing wrote for the majority.

The court found that a plain error cannot exist on a topic where the court has never ruled and there is room for doubt regarding the issue’s outcome.

“The law is not settled on whether use of a GPS device to track a vehicle’s movements constitutes a ‘search’ subject to the strictures of the Fourth Amendment,” Lansing wrote. “Neither the United States Supreme Court nor Idaho appellate courts have spoken to this issue, nor have the vast majority of the federal circuit courts. To the extent that it has been addressed, the jurisprudence in this area is conflicting.”

As a result, the court let stand the district court ruling allowing the GPS evidence. Judge Sergio A. Gutierrez disagreed with the majority’s reasoning.

“Even assuming the GPS evidence was constitutionally obtained, or as the majority concludes, not fundamental error that we can review on appeal, it was much too general to link Danney to criminal drug activity,” Gutierrez wrote in a dissent. “As Danney points out, there was no evidence presented that it was Danney who drove the truck to California, nor that the driver had frequented a known drug location in Arcata or the surrounding area. Moreover, Detective Taddicken did not testify with specificity as to when the vehicle left for Arcata, whether it stopped anywhere during the trip, when it arrived in Arcata, or why he believed Arcata was a ‘hotbed’ of marijuana activity… As a result, the officers’ reliance on an admittedly pretextual traffic stop to further investigate their hunch regarding Danney’s drug activity appears, in this instance, to be an effort to circumvent the protections afforded by our federal and state constitutions against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Idaho v. Danney (Court of Appeals, State of Idaho, 11/5/2010)


Join the conversation
2 of 15 comments
  • Itsgotvtakyo Itsgotvtakyo on Nov 10, 2010

    What an abortion of justice. Where's that Z71 fellow that likes to sniff cop jock? I wonder where he stands on this.

  • Wither Wither on Dec 02, 2010

    So if it was justified because "He was, in fact, smuggling drugs...", then it is also true that we could justify anything, anything at all, to net a perp. How novel.... to be a nation of men rather than a nation of laws. If the whole nation of law thing has simply failed to live up to people's expectations, then the security weenie faction has won. As for putting tracking devices on cop cars, a couple in Phoenix were arrested and thrown in jail on felony trespass, public endangerment, and racketeering charges for doing it as a protest to the new trend, and publishing daily maps of police activities. Of course, it didn't have anything to do with the fact that one of the tagged police cars was parked nearly half of every shift outside of the county....

  • Frank Wait until the gov't subsidies end, you aint seen nothing yet. Ive been "on the floor" when they pulled them for fuel efficient vehicles back during/after the recession and the sales of those cars stopped dead in their tracks
  • Vulpine The issue is really stupidly simple; both names can be taken the wrong way by those who enjoy abusing language. Implying a certain piece of anatomy is a sign of juvenile idiocy which is what triggered the original name-change. The problem was not caused by the company but rather by those who continuously ridiculed the original name for the purpose of VERY low-brow humor.
  • Sgeffe There's someone around where I live who has a recent WRX-STi, but the few times I've been behind this guy, he's always driving right at the underposted arbitrary numbers that some politician pulled out of their backside and slapped on a sign! With no gendarmes or schoolkids present! Haven't been behind this driver on the freeway, but my guess is that he does the left lane police thing with the best of 'em!What's the point of buying such a vehicle if you're never going to exceed a speed limit? (And I've pondered that whilst in line in the left lane at 63mph behind a couple of Accord V6s, as well as an AMG E-Klasse!)
  • Mebgardner I'm not the market for a malleable Tuner / Track model, so I dont know: If you are considering a purchase of one of these, do you consider the Insurance Cost Of Ownership aspect? Or just screw it, I'm gonna buy it no matter.The WRX is at the top of the Insurance Cost pole for tuner models, is why I ask.
  • Mebgardner Wishing for the day of open source software in EVs, including the OS. Lets have some transparency in the algorithms and controls. No Fair data hoovering my phone when connected.I'm also wondering at the level of CANBus components in this vehicle.