()

Justice Matthew J. D’Emic

 

Read Full-Text Decision

Hernandez, charged with rape, moved to suppress evidence directly obtained from an order authorizing the use of a pen register, trap and trace device, cell site data and GPS tracking on his mobile phone, or evidence constituting fruits of the order. he sought suppression of a statement allegedly made by him and an identification procedure for which prosecutors provided notice. He argued the subject order improperly included GPS location information—that could only be obtained via a properly obtained search warrant. It was alleged Hernandez raped the complainant in her apartment, and based on information the victim provided, including his phone number, an application was submitted to install and use a pen register, trap and trace, among other things to assist in locating the perpetrator. Hernandez was eventually apprehended by using information obtained in the trap and trace order. The court noted failure to obtain a proper warrant did not prejudice Hernandez as no useful information was procured from the limited use of the GPS device. Thus, Hernandez’s apprehension was based on authorized and legally obtained information, and not accomplished through improper GPS tracking. Thus, suppression was denied.

Justice Matthew J. D’Emic

 

Read Full-Text Decision

Hernandez, charged with rape, moved to suppress evidence directly obtained from an order authorizing the use of a pen register, trap and trace device, cell site data and GPS tracking on his mobile phone, or evidence constituting fruits of the order. he sought suppression of a statement allegedly made by him and an identification procedure for which prosecutors provided notice. He argued the subject order improperly included GPS location information—that could only be obtained via a properly obtained search warrant. It was alleged Hernandez raped the complainant in her apartment, and based on information the victim provided, including his phone number, an application was submitted to install and use a pen register, trap and trace, among other things to assist in locating the perpetrator. Hernandez was eventually apprehended by using information obtained in the trap and trace order. The court noted failure to obtain a proper warrant did not prejudice Hernandez as no useful information was procured from the limited use of the GPS device. Thus, Hernandez’s apprehension was based on authorized and legally obtained information, and not accomplished through improper GPS tracking. Thus, suppression was denied.