Our March 28, 2013 symposium, Privacy Rights and Proactive Investigations: Emerging Constitutional Issues in Law Enforcement, brought together leading scholars and practitioners to explore three issues that have once more thrust Maryland to the frontier of law enforcement: the validity of DNA databases, new approaches and the latest thinking on witness identifications, and the use of tracking devices after United States v. Jones. Issue 3 is dedicated entirely to the articles that served as fodder for both sides of the debate that day, with a foreword by symposium moderator Thiru Vignarajah, Chief of the Major Investigations Unit at the Baltimore City State’s Attorney’s Office; article synopses are available here.
Post-Jones: How District Courts Are Answering the Myriad Questions Raised by the Supreme Court’s Decision in United States v. Jones by Jason D. Medinger
Back to the Future: United States v. Jones Resuscitates Property Law Concepts in Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence by Nancy Forster
Location, Location, Location: Balancing Crime Fighting Needs and Privacy Rights by Nancy K. Oliver
Research and Reality: Better Understanding the Debate Between Sequential and Simultaneous Photo Arrays by Frederick H. Bealefeld III
Research and Reality: Better Understanding the Debate Between Sequential and Simultaneous Photo Arrays by Rebecca Brown & Stephen Saloom
Indecent Exposure: Genes are More than a Brand Name Label in the DNA Database Debate by Jessica D. Gabel
Why DNA Databasing is good for Maryland – A DNA Analyst’s Perspective by Rana Santos
One thought on “Volume 42 Issue 3”
In his article on post-Jones litigation, Prof. Medinger indicates that the district court applied the Davis good faith exception and allowed the GPS data into evidence at trial. In support of this assertion, Prof. Medinger cites the trial court’s decision at 2012 WL 6443136, now 908 F.Supp.2d 203. In that decision, the trial court applied the good faith exception to cell site data tracking, not GPS tracking.
Whether the Davis good faith exception applies to warrantless GPS tracking is an issue raised in two cert petitions now before the Supreme Court (US v. Aguiar and Kelly v. Maryland) and will be considered by the Ohio and Illinois Supreme Courts. The Third Circuit is now considering the issue after granting the US Attorney’s petition for en banc review in US v. Katzin. Another case raising the same issue is under consideration by the Fourth Circuit in US v. Stevens.
Of particular note is the shifting positions taken by the US Justice Department in this litigation. In several lower court cases, prosecutors argued that Davis directly applied to warrantless GPS surveillance. In several appeals, including Katzin and Stevens, the prosecutor conceded that it did not and that those courts needed to adopt a new good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
It will be interesting to see what position the Solicitor General takes when it responds to the Aguiar petition in July.
Your publication should correct Prof. Medinger’s mistake because it leaves the impression that evidence suppressed by the Supreme Court in Jones somehow was introduced at his trial.