How Amici May (And Should) Affect The Supreme Court’s Decision In U.S. v. Jones

Reid Allison, J.D. Candidate

On November 8th, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in United States v. Jones, 10-1259, a case of great interest to 1L Criminal Procedure students and the general public alike because it will determine whether or not law enforcement officers must obtain a search warrant in order to attach a GPS device to a suspect’s vehicle and track the suspect’s movement for an extended period. The case has been written about by many commentators (including the ACLR’s Kirk Goza and Brad Leneis), and the issue of GPS searches has been the focus of extensive academic debate, including numerous student notes.[1]

Tempted by the Fruit of Another: Third Party Standing and the Exclusionary Rule

Kelly Walters, J.D. Candidate

The exclusionary rule prevents evidence that was obtained through unlawful search and seizure from being admitted in trial. The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine holds that any further evidence found as a result of information uncovered through an unlawful search is also inadmissible at trial. The logic is that if the source of the evidence, the “tree,” is tainted, so too are its gains, or “fruit.” The doctrine was created to safeguard an individual’s privacy interest under the Fourth Amendment and deter police from using unconstitutional means to gather evidence.

But what happens if the person unlawfully searched is not the defendant?  Can the defendant then challenge the constitutionality of the search if it produced incriminating evidence against him or her? If the search was conducted in bad faith, can the defendant challenge it through other means, such as the Fifth Amendment or a Franks hearing?

The short answer is no, at least within the Ninth Circuit. The reason is tied to standing. Since the defendant’s privacy interest was not invaded, he or she does not have standing under the Fourth Amendment to challenge a search of someone else. Even if the search “shocks the conscience,” the third party has no legal redress because his or her Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were ultimately not invaded. Since the searched individuals are rarely parties to the case, they will not challenge the search either. As the following cases show, this leaves a third party defendant with limited, if any, legal recourse. It also raises important questions on how to deter police from invading the rights of one individual to ultimately convict another. 

Matthew Taylor, the FBI Art Crime Team, and the Law of Stolen Chattels

Amy Zelcer, J.D. Candidate

Approximately two weeks ago, Matthew Taylor of Vero Beach, FL was arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) after being indicted on seven felony charges related to art theft and fraud. Taylor targeted an art collector in Los Angeles, and the alleged crime makes him the interest of a new and growing law enforcement mechanism: the FBI’s Art Crime Team.[1]

The indictment accuses Taylor of stealing two paintings from a Los Angeles gallery: “Seascape at Twilight,” a Granville Redmond painting, which he later sold to a different gallery for $85,000 and “Park Scene, Paris,” a painting by artist Lucien Frank. Taylor was seen several years later in possession of the stolen Lucien Frank painting at a gallery in Vero Beach.[2]Additionally, Taylor was charged with defrauding an art collector out of millions of dollars by selling him over 100 forged art works for over $2 million. These included works of art that he falsely claimed were by artists such as Claude Monet, Vincent, van Gogh, Jackson Pollock, and Mark Rothko. The indictment alleges that Taylor altered paintings from unknown artists to make them appear to be the works of these famous artists and then sold these works at inflated prices. Taylor obscured the signatures of the original artists and then forged the signatures of famous artists. He also affixed onto the canvasses fake labels from famous art museums to make it appear that the works had once been part of their collections. [3]