How court interpretations of the law and the U.S. and Ohio constitutions are applied to people’s rights are featured in cases on display in the Visitor Education Center at the Supreme Court of Ohio. The center’s “Eye In the Sky” exhibit features a case that seems as if you’re watching your favorite cop or legal drama as you learn the twists in the legal process.

In State v. Johnson, the Butler County Sheriff’s Department was concerned with drug dealers in 2008 and, watching every move, they put a GPS tracking device on the van of Sudinia Johnson, someone known to have sold cocaine. They didn’t obtain a warrant to place the tracking device on the van.

Johnson drove to Chicago. When he returned to Ohio, police pulled over his van along with a passenger car driven by his associate. More than 15 pounds of cocaine was found in a secret compartment in the car. Johnson was charged with drug trafficking and possession.

In court, Johnson challenged the placement of the GPS on his van as an unconstitutional search, violating his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, both the trial court and appellate court agreed that the placement of a GPS tracking device wasn’t a search that guarantees constitutional protection. Johnson appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.  

Meanwhile, in 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that placing a GPS tracker on a car is a search. Following the precedent set by the high court, the Supreme Court of Ohio overturned the appeals court decision and returned the case to the trial court for new interpretation based on the new U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

With the new legal precedent in place, the trial court and the appellate court both agreed that the placement of the GPS tracker on the van was a search. But this wasn’t the end of the story. The courts considered whether a good-faith exception applied to the search, allowing law enforcement to use the tracker given the circumstances of this case. The appellate court ruled that law enforcement acted with a reasonable good-faith belief that, at the time, their conduct was permitted under the then-understanding of the law. This meant the evidence was admissible at trial, and the appeals court upheld the conviction.

In its decision in Johnson 12 years ago, on Nov. 13, 2014, the Supreme Court agreed that the good-faith exception applied.

“Searches conducted in objectively reasonable, good-faith reliance on this binding appellate precedent are therefore not subject to the exclusionary rule,” the Court wrote.

The “exclusionary rule” referenced by the Court does not allow for evidence to be used at trial if a criminal defendant’s rights were violated when it was obtained. In this case, the rule did not apply to the use of a tracker. Moving forward, GPS tracking of vehicles is considered a search in the legal sense, and police need a warrant to track someone with GPS. But as the journey of this case shows, there are many paths and interpretations a case can take, which make for remarkable discussions.

Learn more about the Johnson case by visiting the Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial Center and the Visitor Education Center. Self-guided tours are free and open to the public during normal business hours. Guided tours are available for groups of six or more by contacting CourtTours@sc.ohio.gov.