Golden Gate University Law Review
Article Title
United States v. Pineda-Moreno, Tracking Down Individuals' Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in the Information Age
Abstract
In Pineda-Moreno, the Ninth Circuit held that prolonged police monitoring of a defendant’s precise location through the use of GPS transmitters did not constitute a search. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit relied on the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Knotts. Knotts held that “[a] person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another.” Prior to the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Pineda-Moreno, most federal appellate courts interpreted Knotts to hold that location tracking outside the home is analogous to physical surveillance and therefore does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. Since Pineda-Moreno, however, other courts have disagreed with the Ninth Circuit and have held that prolonged GPS monitoring of a defendant’s movements does constitute a search.
Part I of this Note presents the facts and procedural history of United States v. Pineda-Moreno, followed by a discussion of relevant Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, highlighting the Supreme Court’s public-exposure doctrine as described in United States v. Knotts. Part II argues that the Ninth Circuit based its decision in Pineda-Moreno on the precise issue the Supreme Court declined to decide in Knotts: whether prolonged twenty-four-hour electronic surveillance of an individual constitutes a search. In Part III, this Note goes on to analyze how the Ninth Circuit’s misinterpretation of the Knotts holding compelled it to prematurely reject Pineda-Moreno’s Fourth Amendment claim without analyzing whether he had a justifiable expectation of privacy. Part IV concludes that law enforcement’s use of GPS technology to monitor Pineda-Moreno’s movements over the course of four months constituted a search because it violated his reasonable expectation of privacy. In Part V, this Note proposes a practical two-step analysis that balances the Supreme Court’s public-exposure doctrine with the privacy interest at stake when the government utilizes advanced technology, like GPS tracking, to conduct comprehensive surveillance of an individual.
Recommended Citation
Caitlin Emmett,
United States v. Pineda-Moreno, Tracking Down Individuals' Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in the Information Age, 41 Golden Gate U. L. Rev.
(2011).
https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev/vol41/iss3/3