Background
Derek Lamar Murray was convicted in two separate jury trials arising from shootings on September 24 and October 4, 2023. The convictions included assault with intent to commit murder, felony-firearm, felonious assault, first-degree home invasion, and intentional discharge of a firearm at a dwelling. Location data from an electronic tether placed Murray near the scene of each shooting.
The misdemeanor domestic-violence charges underlying Murray’s tether condition had been dismissed on October 3, 2023, but the tether remained attached. Murray moved to suppress location data used in the October 4 investigation. In an earlier appeal, the Court of Appeals remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. After hearing testimony from responding and investigating officers, the trial court found that the exception applied and again denied suppression and a new trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that law enforcement obtained and used Murray’s tether-location data in objective good faith. Although Murray’s former girlfriend told two responding officers that his tether condition had ended, those officers were dealing with a chaotic shooting scene, securing the area, and providing lifesaving aid to a victim who had been shot five times. Neither officer searched the tether data, and the record did not show that either intentionally concealed the information.
The detective who requested the data and the sergeant who searched it did not know that the tether condition had been dismissed. The tether unit told the detective that the tether remained active, while the sergeant had received neither the court paperwork nor the email notification that ordinarily advised him of a tether’s termination. Because the record showed no culpable or wrongful police conduct that suppression would deter, the good-faith exception applied. The court therefore did not reach the trial court’s alternative conclusion that admission of the data was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Key Takeaways
- Tether-location evidence was admissible because the officers who requested and searched it reasonably believed Murray’s electronic monitoring remained active.
- Unverified information given to different officers at an emergency scene did not establish wrongful police conduct where those officers were focused on securing the scene and treating a gravely wounded victim.
- Because the good-faith exception resolved the suppression issue, the court declined to consider harmless error.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the exclusionary rule’s good-faith exception to electronic-monitoring data obtained after the legal basis for a tether had ended but before relevant officers knew of the termination. It emphasizes that suppression turns on police culpability and deterrence, not merely on an administrative or communication failure that leaves officers with inaccurate information.