TRENTON, N.J. — The New Jersey State Police violated a suspect’s constitutional rights when troopers entered his driveway to install a GPS tracker on his car without a warrant that specifically authorized them to access the property, a state appellate panel ruled.
The suspect, identified as Maurice E. Johnson, was under investigation by State Police narcotics detectives for suspected drug trafficking in 2022.
The three-judge panel unanimously found that while police had a communications data warrant to install the tracker, it did not give them permission to physically enter Johnson’s private residential driveway, the New Jersey Monitor reported. As a result, the court granted Johnson’s motion to suppress all evidence obtained from the GPS device.
“The [warrant] did not expressly authorize entry onto the driveway,” the court wrote. “Nor did the State Police seek prior judicial authorization to enter onto defendant’s residential property when they abandoned the plan to install the device on a public street or parking lot.”
The GPS tracker had been placed without Johnson’s knowledge and revealed movements consistent with drug activity. That data led police to a storage unit in Johnson’s name, where they found drugs, guns and a significant amount of cash.
A lower court had previously ruled against suppressing the GPS evidence, determining that Johnson’s driveway, which was unfenced, was not entitled to Fourth Amendment protections. The appellate court disagreed, stating that even an accessible driveway is protected from unreasonable government intrusion under both the U.S. and New Jersey constitutions, according to the report.
“The fact the particular area where the subject vehicle was parked was not protected from the weather does not mean it was not protected from physical incursion,” the panel wrote.
The ruling clarified that police, like any private citizen, have a limited “implied license” to approach a the front door of a home, such as for knocking or delivering a package. But in this case, officers went beyond those bounds by veering off course to plant the device, thereby exceeding the limits of any customary invitation.
“Simply put, installing a concealed GPS device is not something a visitor or delivery person would be expected and permitted to do,” the court stated.
The judges also rejected the state’s comparison of the police action to a private vehicle repossession, emphasizing that the Fourth Amendment protects against governmental, not private, intrusion.
While the warrant referenced the need to “minimize the chances of detection of the device,” the court said that language did not authorize officers to enter unspecified private property. Both federal and state constitutions require that warrants particularly describe the places to be searched, and this one did not.
The court further ruled that whether the officers sincerely believed they were acting within the law was irrelevant, according to the report.
Additionally, the court noted that the improperly obtained GPS evidence had played a direct role in securing a subsequent search warrant for Johnson’s home. A lower court had already thrown out that search because officers failed to follow the “knock and announce” requirement of the warrant.
