Wertz v. State, No. 48A04–1409–CR–427.

Docket NºNo. 48A04–1409–CR–427.
Citation41 N.E.3d 276
Case DateJuly 07, 2015
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

41 N.E.3d 276

Christopher WERTZ, Appellant–Defendant
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.

No. 48A04–1409–CR–427.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

July 7, 2015.


41 N.E.3d 278

B. Joseph Davis, Law Office of B. Joseph Davis, P.C., Muncie, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Brian Reitz, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellees.

ROBB, Judge.

Case Summary and Issue

[1] Christopher Wertz brings this interlocutory appeal, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. He presents one issue, which is a matter of first impression: whether the warrantless search of his personal Garmin Global Positioning System (“GPS”) device violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.1 We conclude Wertz's GPS device is not a “container” under the automobile exception and that he has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the device and its contents. Therefore, the warrantless search of the GPS device violated the Fourth Amendment. We reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural History2

2] On September 9, 2011, Wertz was driving in Madison County when he lost control of his vehicle and struck a utility pole. Wertz was severely injured, and his passenger, Megan Solinski, died at the scene of the accident as a result of injuries sustained. Law enforcement officers found a Garmin GPS device, which belonged to Wertz, near the wrecked vehicle.

[3] Approximately one week after the accident, law enforcement officers visited Wertz at the hospital and obtained written consent to examine the content saved in the GPS unit. However, the GPS required a pin code to access the device, which Captain Rick Garrett obtained by contacting the company that produces the GPS device, Garmin International. Once that passcode was retrieved, an officer was able to collect information from the GPS device, including the route Wertz traveled and his speed at the time of the accident.

[4] The State charged Wertz with reckless homicide, a Class C felony, and Wertz filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained through the warrantless search of his GPS device. The trial court found that Wertz's consent to search the device was invalid because he was on pain medication at the time the officers received his consent; however, the trial court held that Wertz had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the GPS device and thus the information collected from it was admissible.

[5] A jury trial was held in March 2014 but ended in a mistrial, and a second jury trial was scheduled to take place on July 29, 2014. In the interim, the United States Supreme Court decided

[41 N.E.3d 279

Riley v. California, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014), which held that a warrant was required to search digital information on an arrestee's cell phone. Wertz reacted by requesting that the trial court reconsider his motion to suppress in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Riley. The trial court revisited the matter but ultimately issued an order on August 4, 2014, denying Wertz's renewed motion to suppress.

6] On August 22, 2014, Wertz filed a motion to certify the trial court's order for interlocutory appeal, which the trial court granted on August 26, 2014. On September 11, 2014, Wertz requested that the Court of Appeals accept jurisdiction of the appeal, and we accepted jurisdiction on October 9, 2014. On appeal, the only issue is whether the search of Wertz's GPS device violated a reasonable expectation of privacy. The State does not challenge the trial court's determination that Wertz did not provide valid consent for the search.

Discussion and Decision

I. Standard of Review

[7] When reviewing a trial court's denial of a defendant's motion to suppress, we view conflicting factual evidence in the light most favorable to the ruling but we will also consider substantial and uncontested evidence favorable to the defendant. Robinson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 362, 365 (Ind.2014). That said, the constitutionality of a search or seizure is a question of law, which we review de novo. Id.

[8] The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures....” “[T]he ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness[.]’ ” Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006). We approach cases involving warrantless searches with the basic understanding that “searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 338, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009) (quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (footnote omitted)). Where there is no clear practice concerning the constitutionality of a search, the reasonableness of the search is judged by balancing “the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual's privacy and ... the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 299–300, 119 S.Ct. 1297, 143 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999).

II. Wertz's GPS Device

[9] The Garmin GPS device searched by the State was personally owned by Wertz and kept in his vehicle. The device includes pre-loaded street maps and the ability to store hundreds of waypoints and locations. The device is also compatible with microSD cards, which are routinely able to store 16 to 128 gigabytes (GB) of data. In addition, Wertz's GPS device is designed to automatically record and store information such as location, past routes traveled, and speed. It is because of that automated storage that law enforcement was able to discover Wertz's route of travel and rate of speed on the day of his accident.

III. Fourth Amendment

[10] Wertz argues that the warrantless search of his GPS unit violated his right to be free from unreasonable searches. He claims that his GPS device is similar to a cell phone that cannot be searched without a warrant and that the location data stored

[41 N.E.3d 280

in the GPS is private information. To support his arguments, Wertz relies heavily on two recent United States Supreme Court decisions: Riley v. California, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014) and United States v. Jones, ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012). The State, for its part, argues that a GPS device is less private than a cell phone, the information stored in the GPS device is entitled to less protection because it is information Wertz exposed to the public, and the search was allowable under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.

A. Automobile Exception to the Warrant Requirement

[11] Warrantless searches are presumed unreasonable and may be excused only upon a showing of circumstances that yield a diminished expectation of privacy. To justify the search in this case, the State hangs it hat on the warrant requirement's “automobile exception.”

[12] The automobile exception has deep roots in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and essentially provides that a vehicle—and its contents—may be searched without a warrant so long as law enforcement has probable cause to believe evidence of a crime may be found inside. See Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 466–67, 119 S.Ct. 2013, 144 L.Ed.2d 442 (1999) (per curiam). Principles underlying the automobile exception include a vehicle's mobility and subjection to government regulation, California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 390–93, 105 S.Ct. 2066, 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985), and the inability to avoid public scrutiny due to its exposure to “public thoroughfares where both its occupants and its contents are in plain view,” South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 368, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976) (citation omitted).

[13] The automobile exception allows law enforcement to search not only the vehicle itself but also any containers inside it that may contain evidence. California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 580, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991). The authority to search containers found in a vehicle extends to locked containers. See id. at 577–79, 111 S.Ct. 1982 (abrogating United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977) ). The State likens the GPS device in this case to a locked container and directs us to lower court decisions comparing computers and cell phones to locked containers. See Brief of Appellee at 21–22. Indiana does not have a case directly on point, but lower courts in other jurisdictions are split on the issue of whether a computer or cell phone may be treated as a container and subjected to a warrantless search under the automobile exception. Compare United States v. Zaavedra, No. 12–CR156–GKF, 2013 WL 6438981, at *3 (N.D.Okla. Dec. 9, 2013) (holding warrantless search of a cell phone was permissible under the automobile exception),3 and United States v. Garcia–Aleman, No. 1:10–CR–29, 2010 WL 2635071, at *12 (E.D.Tex. June 9, 2010) (same), with United States v. Mayo, No. 2:13–CR–48, 2013 WL 5945802, at *9–14 (D.Vt. Nov. 6, 2013) (holding that cell phones are comparable to computers and that if seized under the automobile...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Zanders v. State, No. 15A01–1509–CR–1519.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 4 Agosto 2016
    ...stream of historical location data, approaching the information that can be gleaned from a GPS device or a beeper. See Wertz v. State, 41 N.E.3d 276, 285 (Ind.2015) (the data on defendant's GPS device is subject to Fourth Amendment protections); Forest, 355 F.3d at 947.[32] For years, court......
  • Jacobs v. State, No. 49A02–1601–CR–19.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 7 Noviembre 2016
    ...of legitimate governmental interests.” Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 299–300, 119 S.Ct. 1297, 143 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999).Wertz v. State, 41 N.E.3d 276, 279 (Ind.Ct.App.2015) (emphasis to words “per se ” in original), trans. denied. Application of the Fourth Amendment has been extended to t......
  • Weathers v. State, No. 49A04–1601–CR–3.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 17 Agosto 2016
    ...of legitimate governmental interests.” Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 299–300, 119 S.Ct. 1297, 143 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999).Wertz v. State, 41 N.E.3d 276, 279 (Ind.Ct.App.2015), trans. denied. Application of the Fourth Amendment has been extended to the States through the Due Process Clause o......
  • Hodges v. State, No. 43A03–1507–CR–843.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 18 Mayo 2016
    ...most favorable to the ruling but we will also consider substantial and uncontested evidence favorable to the defendant.” Wertz v. State, 41 N.E.3d 276, 279 (Ind.Ct.App.2015), trans. denied. However, the constitutionality of a search or seizure is a question of law, which we review de novo. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Zanders v. State, No. 15A01–1509–CR–1519.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 4 Agosto 2016
    ...stream of historical location data, approaching the information that can be gleaned from a GPS device or a beeper. See Wertz v. State, 41 N.E.3d 276, 285 (Ind.2015) (the data on defendant's GPS device is subject to Fourth Amendment protections); Forest, 355 F.3d at 947.[32] For years, court......
  • Jacobs v. State, No. 49A02–1601–CR–19.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 7 Noviembre 2016
    ...of legitimate governmental interests.” Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 299–300, 119 S.Ct. 1297, 143 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999).Wertz v. State, 41 N.E.3d 276, 279 (Ind.Ct.App.2015) (emphasis to words “per se ” in original), trans. denied. Application of the Fourth Amendment has been extended to t......
  • Weathers v. State, No. 49A04–1601–CR–3.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 17 Agosto 2016
    ...of legitimate governmental interests.” Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 299–300, 119 S.Ct. 1297, 143 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999).Wertz v. State, 41 N.E.3d 276, 279 (Ind.Ct.App.2015), trans. denied. Application of the Fourth Amendment has been extended to the States through the Due Process Clause o......
  • McElroy v. State, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-2930
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 25 Septiembre 2019
    ...N.E.2d at 373. Nevertheless, the constitutionality of a search or seizure is a question of law, which we review de novo. Wertz v. State , 41 N.E.3d 276, 279 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied .A. Handgun1. Fourth Amendment [11] The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protect......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT