United States v. Diggs
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
385 F. Supp. 3d 648 (2019)
- Written by Noah Lewis, JD
Facts
Tobias Diggs (defendant) and two others were charged with robbing a Razny Jewelers store in Hinsdale, Illinois. Detectives identified the getaway vehicle as a Lexus registered to Diggs’s wife, Devinn Adams. Diggs regularly drove the Lexus. Purchased on credit, the contract allowed Headers Car Care to use the car’s GPS-tracking device to find the car. A Headers employee authorized a detective to log in to the Air Assault Asset Track GPS Systems’ website. Without obtaining a warrant, the detective downloaded GPS data for the Lexus from March 1, 2017, through April 4, 2017. The data included time-stamped entries giving block-level address data each time the car was turned on, parked, and every five minutes while being driven. Software further provided specific latitude and longitude points. The GPS data placed the Lexus in Hinsdale on the date of the March 17, 2017 robbery and the two previous days. The Lexus also traveled to and from the defendants’ residences and was on the same block as Razny Jewelers at the time of the robbery and in the alleyway directly behind the store during the robbery. The Lexus was then parked in a third-party’s garage, where police seized it on April 4. Diggs moved to suppress the GPS evidence as an unreasonable search.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Feinerman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.