State v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 13 November 2014
• Docket Number: No. 2013–1973.,2013–1973.
• Citation: 2014 Ohio 5021,22 N.E.3d 1061,141 Ohio St.3d 136
• Parties: The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. JOHNSON, Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

141 Ohio St.3d 136

22 N.E.3d 1061

2014 Ohio 5021

The STATE of Ohio, Appellee,

v.JOHNSON, Appellant.

No. 2013–1973.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted Sept. 24, 2014.

Decided Nov. 13, 2014.

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael A. Oster Jr. and Lina N. Alkamhawi, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.

Arenstein & Gallagher, William R. Gallagher, Cincinnati, and Elizabeth Conkin, for appellant.

Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Eric E. Murphy, State Solicitor, urging affirmance for Ohio Attorney General Michael DeWine.

Gregg Marx, Fairfield County Prosecuting Attorney; Timothy J. McGinty, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Katherine Mullin, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney; and Ron O'Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Steven L. Taylor, Chief Counsel, Appellate Division, urging affirmance for amici curiae Prosecuting Attorneys Association, Fairfield County Prosecuting Attorney, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney.

Pinales, Stachler, Young, Burrell & Crouse Co., L.P.A., and Candace C. Crouse, urging reversal for amicus curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

O'DONNELL, J.

{¶ 1} Sudinia Johnson appeals from a judgment of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals which affirmed his conviction for trafficking in cocaine and held that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule permitted the admission of evidence obtained from a global-positioning-system ("GPS") tracking device that Detective Mike Hackney had placed on Johnson's vehicle without obtaining a search warrant.

{¶ 2} The United States Supreme Court crafted the exclusionary rule to deter violations of the rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but it has recognized that the costs to society outweigh any deterrent benefit of excluding evidence obtained in a search that appeared to police to be constitutional. Thus, in Davis v. United States, –––U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011), the court declined to apply the exclusionary rule to a search conducted in objectively reasonable, good-faith reliance on binding appellate precedent that was later overruled. This exception to the exclusionary rule—the good-faith reliance on precedent—is at issue here.

{¶ 3} In October 2008, when Detective Hackney attached a GPS tracking device to Johnson's van, two cases from the United States Supreme Court—United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 103 S.Ct. 1081, 75 L.Ed.2d 55 (1983), and United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705, 104 S.Ct. 3296, 82 L.Ed.2d 530 (1984) —supported Hackney's objectively reasonable belief that attaching a tracking device to a vehicle did not violate any reasonable expectation of privacy that Johnson had, either in the undercarriage of his van or in his whereabouts while driving on public streets and highways. In addition, Hackney relied in good faith on advice received from an assistant prosecuting attorney, from fellow members of law enforcement, and in training seminars that this practice did not implicate Fourth Amendment protections.

{¶ 4} In United States v. Jones, ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012), decided four years after Hackney put the GPS tracking device on Johnson's van, the court held that the attachment of such a device to an individual's vehicle is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Notwithstanding Jones, which clarifies the law going forward, because Knotts and Karo served as binding appellate precedent to justify placing GPS tracking devices on suspects' vehicles without obtaining a search warrant, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies, and therefore, exclusion of the evidence obtained by police in this case is not warranted.

{¶ 5} Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the appellate court.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 6} In October 2008, Detective Hackney of the Butler County Sheriff's Department received information from an informant that Johnson had recently sold multiple kilograms of cocaine, that he would soon travel to Chicago to obtain seven more kilograms, and that he would transport the cocaine in a van. Hackney had received similar information from two other informants in the six months prior to this, and he knew that Johnson owned a white Chevy van.

{¶ 7} Relying on his understanding that a search warrant was not needed, Hackney did not obtain a warrant before he attached a GPS tracking device to Johnson's van. Rather, on the evening of October 23, 2008, he and two other officers went to Johnson's neighborhood in Hamilton, Ohio, and while the other officers seized Johnson's trash, Hackney located Johnson's van, which was parked on the street, and attached a battery-powered GPS tracking device to its undercarriage. The device was "probably no bigger than a pager" and was sealed in a magnetic case, and it did not need to be hard wired to the van's electrical systems. It permitted Hackney to remotely track and record the van's movements in real time using a secure website.

{¶ 8} The van stayed near Hamilton for five days, but on October 28, 2008, Hackney logged onto the website and located the van in a parking lot at a shopping center in Calumet City, Illinois. He then arranged for Rudy Medellin, a retired Immigration and Customs officer living in the Chicago area, to go to the shopping center and verify that Johnson's van was there.

{¶ 9} Medellin located the van, used the license plate to confirm it belonged to Johnson, and followed it to a nearby residence in Chicago. Medellin watched Johnson walk out of the residence carrying a package and enter the van. Medellin then saw the garage door open and another man, later identified as Otis Kelly, drive out in a passenger car bearing Ohio license plates. Medellin followed both vehicles as they traveled toward Ohio, and Hackney monitored the van's movements using the GPS device.

{¶ 10} The car and van separated before crossing into Ohio. Hackney directed officers to stop the vehicles "if they were able to find probable cause to make a stop." Deputy Daren Rhodes saw Johnson improperly cross lanes to make a turn and pulled the van over. After officers removed Johnson from the vehicle at gunpoint, he consented to a search of the van, but no drugs were found. Other officers stopped Kelly for following too closely behind another vehicle. A search of Kelly's car revealed a concealed compartment in the trunk; officers used a key from Johnson's key ring to open it and found seven kilograms of cocaine.

{¶ 11} A grand jury indicted Johnson for one count of trafficking in cocaine and one count of possession of cocaine, each with a major-drug-offender specification, as well as one count of having a weapon while under a disability. He moved to suppress the evidence against him, asserting that the warrantless placement and monitoring of the GPS tracking device on his van violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

{¶ 12} At the suppression hearing, Hackney testified that he had attended training seminars on police use of GPS tracking devices and had consulted with assistant prosecutor Dave Kash, fellow officers and supervisors, and other law-enforcement agencies about the legality of using GPS devices. He stated that "it was kind of common knowledge among other drug units or talking to other drug units that as long as the GPS is not hard wired, as long as it is placed on—in a public area, removed in a public area, it is basically a tool or an extension of surveillance."

{¶ 13} The trial court denied the motion to suppress. Johnson pleaded no contest to trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine with major-drug-offender specifications, and at a bench trial, the court acquitted him of having a weapon while under a disability. The court merged the convictions as allied offenses and imposed an aggregate 15–year sentence.

{¶ 14} The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of his motion to suppress, holding that the placement of a GPS tracking device on a vehicle is not a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. 190 Ohio App.3d 750, 2010-Ohio-5808, 944 N.E.2d 270 (12th Dist.), ¶ 47.

{¶ 15} We accepted Johnson's discretionary appeal. 128 Ohio St.3d 1425, 2011-Ohio-1049, 943 N.E.2d 572. In line with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Jones, ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 911, which held that attaching a GPS tracking device to an individual's vehicle is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, we vacated the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court for application of Jones . 131 Ohio St.3d 301, 2012-Ohio-975, 964 N.E.2d 426.

{¶ 16} On remand, the trial court found that placing the GPS tracking device on Johnson's van violated the Fourth Amendment. However, it declined to suppress the evidence against Johnson based on the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, concluding that "the deterrence benefit [of] exclusion in this case of non-culpable, non-flagrant police conduct does not outweigh the heavy costs of exclusion to society and the judicial system. * * * The Court finds that the officers acted in good faith * * * and the evidence will be admitted at trial."

{¶ 17} Johnson again pleaded no contest to trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine with major-drug-offender specifications, and the court merged his convictions as allied offenses and sentenced him to ten years in prison.

{¶ 18} The court of appeals affirmed, applying the good-faith exception in "a case-by-case approach examining the culpability and conduct of law enforcement." 12th Dist., 2013-Ohio-4865, 1 N.E.3d 491, ¶ 23. The court explained that "[a]s of October 23, 2008, no court had ruled that the warrantless installation and monitoring of GPS devices on vehicles that remained on public roadways was a violation of the Fourth Amendment," federal circuit courts had upheld the practice, and according to Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 103 S.Ct. 1081, 75...