United States v. Martin
| Decision Date | 25 March 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 11–1696.,11–1696. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Matthew L. MARTIN, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
712 F.3d 1080
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Matthew L. MARTIN, Defendant–Appellant.
No. 11–1696.
United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.
March 25, 2013.
[712 F.3d 1081]
Linda L. Mullen, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Rock Island, IL, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
George F. Taseff, Attorney, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant–Appellant.
Before FLAUM, KANNE, and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Matthew L. Martin, a convicted felon, pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm, see18 U.S.C. § 922(g), subject to the condition that he be allowed to challenge the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the firearm and drugs found in his car. He appealed, and we affirmed the district court's judgment in United States v. Martin, 664 F.3d 684 (7th Cir.2011), after concluding that the police did not violate Martin's rights under the Fifth Amendment—the only question he presented in his appeal. Martin then filed a timely petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc, which was pending when the Supreme Court decided United States v. Jones, ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012). The Supreme Court held that the installation of a GPS device on a vehicle and the use of that device to track the vehicle's location constitutes a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 949. Following Jones, Martin added arguments based on the warrantless GPS in his case to his other arguments for suppression, and we ordered a limited remand for the district court to consider (1) whether Martin's plea agreement allowed him to challenge the evidence against him under Jones, and (2) whether Jones justified the suppression of the evidence against him. The district court concluded that Martin's conditional plea (which preserved a Fourth Amendment challenge to the admissibility of a gun seized from his car) did not erect an insurmountable bar to raising such issues on appeal, but that Martin was not entitled to suppression under a “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule. At our direction, the parties filed supplemental briefs addressing only the issues raised in the limited remand and the district court's decision.
Our earlier opinion thoroughly discussed the police's investigation of Martin and his arrest, and we repeat here only the details relevant to his current motion. After a bank robbery in Burlington, Iowa, police officers received a tip that Martin was one of the robbers. The police located Martin, attached a GPS device to his car, and tracked him into Illinois, where a local deputy sheriff stopped and searched his car. The search revealed drugs and a revolver...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. Commonwealth, Record No. 151277
...authorized a search or seizure that a later case subsequently deemed unconstitutional. See, e.g. , United States v. Martin , 712 F.3d 1080, 1081-82 (7th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). These courts abjure any reliance upon an officer’s objective, good faith belief unless that belief was based upon......
-
United States v. Stephens
...the country, especially where that amorphous opinion turns out to be incorrect in the Supreme Court's eyes.” United States v. Martin, 712 F.3d 1080, 1082 (7th Cir.2013) (per curiam). I would reverse the judgment of the district court. 1. In March 2011, Officer Geare installed the GPS on Ste......
-
People v. LeFlore, 116799.
...or well-reasoned precedent. See United States v. Ortiz, 878 F.Supp.2d 515, 539–40 (E.D.Pa.2012). See also United States v. Martin, 712 F.3d 1080, 1081–82 (7th Cir.2013) (per curiam ) (where there was no binding appellate precedent in the Eighth Circuit at the time that Iowa law enforcement ......
-
United States v. Taylor
...the law governing the constitutionality of a particular search is unsettled.” 131 S.Ct. at 2435 (Sotomayor, J., concurring); see Martin, 712 F.3d at 1082 (quoting with approval this proposition from Judge Sotomayor's concurrence and declining to extend Davis ). As Justice Sotomayor pointed ......
-
Search and seizure of electronic devices
...reliance on binding appellate case law, and no such law existed with respect to GPS tracking. See, e.g., United States v. Martin , 712 F.3d 1080,1082 (7th Cir 2013) ( per curiam ). Vehicles that are tracked by a GPS device may cross state lines. In United States v. Brewer , 915 F.3d 408, 41......
-
Search and Seizure of Electronic Devices
...reliance on binding appellate case law, and no such law existed with respect to GPS tracking. See, e.g., United States v. Martin , 712 F.3d 1080,1082 (7th Cir 2013)(per curiam). SUPPRESSING CRIMINAL EVIDENCE 8-15 §8:50 §8:46 Sample Fact Scenario Police illegally install a GPS tracking devic......
-
Search and Seizure of Electronic Devices
...reliance on binding appellate case law, and no such law existed with respect to GPS tracking. See, e.g., United States v. Martin , 712 F.3d 1080,1082 (7th Cir 2013)(per curiam). §8:46 Sample Fact Scenario Police illegally install a GPS tracking device on your client’s car because they belie......
-
Search & seizure
...and that reliance on the prevailing view among other jurisdictions falls outside the scope of Davis .”); United States v. Martin , 712 F.3d 1080 (7th Cir. 2013)( Davis and the good faith exception are contrary to the usual rule of exclusion and should be confined to their specific facts unt......