◆ SpookStack

A. Wiretaps 5 B. Traffic Stop 8 C. Superseding Indictment 12 D. Multiple Conspiracies 13 E. Immunity 14 III. Analysis: Evidence Obtained from GPS Device 15 A. Was Use of GPS a Search? 16 1. Knotts is not controlling 17 2. Were Jones's locations exposed to the public? 21 a. Actually exposed? 22 (i). Precedent 23 (ii). Application 26 b. Constructively exposed? 26 (i). Precedent 27 (ii). Application 28 3. Was Jones's expectation of privacy reasonable? 31 4. Visual surveillance distinguished 34 B. Was the Search Reasonable Nonetheless? 38 C. Was the Error Harmless? 39 IV. Conclusion 41 *1 The appellants, Antoine Jones and Lawrence Maynard, appeal their convictions after a joint trial for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and 50 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. $$ 841 and 846. Maynard also challenges the sentence imposed by the district court. Because the appellants' convictions arise from the same underlying facts and they make several overlapping arguments, we consolidated their appeals. For the reasons that follow, we reverse Jones's and affirm Maynard's convictions.. I. Background Jones owned and Maynard managed the "Levels'" nightclub in the District of Columbia. In 2004 an FBI-Metropolitan Police Department Safe Streets Task Force began investigating the two for narcotics violations. The investigation culminated in searches and arrests on October 24, 2005. We discuss that investigation and the drug distribution operation it uncovered in greater detail where relevant to the appellants' arguments on appeal. On October 25 Jones and several alleged co-conspirators were charged with, among other things, conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. Maynard, who was added as a defendant in superseding indictments filed in March and June 2006, pled guilty in June 2006. 2 TTLOTC 007083