Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appeal
defendantappeal

Related Cases

U.S. v. Cervantes-Blanco, 504 F.3d 576
View Case »
State ex rel. Baumert v. Superior Court In and For Maricopa County, 127 Ariz. 152, 618 P.2d 1078
View Case »
Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255, 112 S.Ct. 1881, 119 L.Ed.2d 57, 60 USLW 4411
View Case »
Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 117 S.Ct. 1295, 137 L.Ed.2d 513, 145 A.L.R. Fed. 657, 65 USLW 4243, 12 IER Cases 1233, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2723, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4831, 97 CJ C.A.R. 520, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 393
View Case »
Fredenburg v. State, 203 So.3d 638
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

United States v. Gilliam, 842 F.3d 801

Facts

Jabar Gilliam was charged with sex trafficking a minor named Jasmin, who he met when she was 16. After threatening her sister, he brought Jasmin to New York City, where he forced her into prostitution. Law enforcement became involved when Jasmin's foster mother reported her missing, leading to an investigation that revealed Gilliam's actions. On December 2, 2011, police requested GPS location information from Sprint, which was provided without a warrant due to the exigent circumstances surrounding Jasmin's safety.

Gilliam met Jasmin in Maryland in late October or early November 2011. She was sixteen at the time, but told Gilliam that she was seventeen. Gilliam asked Jasmin to work for him as a prostitute after she told him she was working for another pimp.

Issue

Whether information from a global positioning system (GPS) can be obtained and used without a warrant to locate a suspect.

The principal issue on this appeal from a conviction for sex trafficking involving a minor is whether information from a global positioning system (“GPS”) can be obtained and used without a warrant to locate a suspect.

Rule

Exigent circumstances justify warrantless searches when there is an urgent need to take action to prevent serious bodily injury or death.

Exigent circumstances justified obtaining and using GPS location information without a warrant.

Analysis

The court found that the circumstances known to law enforcement at the time justified the warrantless GPS tracking of Gilliam's cell phone. The information gathered from Jasmin's foster mother, social worker, and biological mother indicated that Gilliam was bringing Jasmin to New York City for prostitution, which posed a significant risk of serious bodily injury. The court concluded that the urgency of the situation warranted immediate action without waiting for a warrant.

We agree with the District Court that exigent circumstances justified GPS tracking of Gilliam's cell phone.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling, concluding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless GPS tracking of Gilliam's cell phone.

We conclude that exigent circumstances justified obtaining and using GPS location information without a warrant and therefore affirm.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the court upheld the use of GPS tracking without a warrant based on exigent circumstances.

The Court of Appeals, Jon O. Newman, Circuit Judge, held that exigent circumstances justified global positioning system (GPS) tracking defendant's cell phone and obtaining such information from cell phone provider without a warrant.

You must be