Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 13 MARCH 2013

Technology v. The Fourth Amendment

Fox Rothschild LLP
Fox Rothschild LLP
Contributor
Explore more from Fox Rothschild LLP

Last week, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued an opinion reversing a decision by the Berks County Court of Common Pleas granting a motion to suppress evidence in a drug-trafficking case involving the use of a GPS tracking device.

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Recently, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued an opinion reversing a decision by the Berks County Court of Common Pleas granting a motion to suppress evidence in a drug-trafficking case involving the use of a GPS tracking device.  See Com. v. Burgos, No. 718 MDA 2012 (Pa. Super. Ct., Feb. 20, 2013).

In the fall of 2010, law enforcement agents from the Berks County Detectives (the "County Detectives") arrested eight individuals suspected of marijuana and cocaine trafficking.  Two of the individuals turned confidential informants and provided the County Detectives with information about their supplier.  The informants identified the defendant's picture and provided information about his activities that was corroborated by recordings obtained in separate court-ordered wiretaps.  Based on the foregoing, the County Detectives obtained a warrant to place a GPS tracking device on defendant's vehicle pursuant to Section 5761 of Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from