Los Angeles GPS and Cell Tracking Attorney

Standing between you and the government’s ever-expanding surveillance toolbox is a seventy-eight-word sentence written in 1791: the Fourth Amendment. Yet the parchment alone will not protect you when prosecutors in Los Angeles introduce months of GPS location data, a “geofence” dragnet from Google, or a cell-site simulator pinging your phone every few seconds. You need counsel who can translate centuries-old constitutional language into modern motion practice, counsel who knows the technology, the case law, and the local courts. 

If you are facing criminal charges, you must consult a Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer immediately. At Kraut Law Group Criminal & DUI Lawyers, Inc., we fuse prosecutorial experience with cutting-edge privacy litigation to keep illegally seized location evidence out of court.

• Precision and permanence. GPS receivers in cars and phones can pinpoint a target within feet and archive months of travel; once recorded, the data rarely disappears.
• Mosaic revelation. A single day’s itinerary may look harmless, but weeks of routes can reveal political or religious associations, intimate relationships, or medical appointments.
• It is low-cost for the police. Automated trackers let a handful of detectives watch thousands of people 24/7 without overtime or stakeouts.
• Juror psychology. Digital maps appear scientific and authoritative, even when they rest on unconstitutional searches.

Because location data is so persuasive, suppressing it often means winning the case.

The Supreme Court has clarified that tracking technology can cross the Fourth Amendment line even when officers never enter your home.

• United States v. Jones (2012) – Installing a magnetized GPS unit on a Jeep and monitoring it for 28 days was a “search” because the officers physically trespassed and created a detailed travel log. The Court signaled that long-term electronic monitoring intrudes on reasonable expectations of privacy even in public spaces.
• Carpenter v. United States (2018) – Obtaining 127 days of historical cell-site location information (CSLI) from a wireless carrier without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment; the Court rejected the idea that people abandon privacy interests merely by using a phone network.

These rulings, read together, require police in Los Angeles to secure a warrant supported by probable cause before attaching a tracker to your vehicle, harvesting your real-time CSLI, or sweeping up long spans of historical cell data, subject to narrow exceptions such as hot pursuit or exigency.

In 2015, the Legislature enacted the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (CalECPA), mandating a warrant for almost every electronic location evidence, from CSLI to wearable-device pings. CalECPA also requires:

• Particularity. The warrant must identify the device or account with reasonable specificity.
• Notification. Targets are entitled to post-search notice in most instances.
• Suppression. Evidence obtained in violation of the statute can be barred even if federal law would admit it.

For Angelenos, CalECPA often supplies a statutory suppression remedy beyond the federal exclusionary rule.

Los Angeles detectives increasingly seek “reverse location” warrants that compel Google to reveal every device inside a virtual fence around a crime scene. In People v. Meza (2023), California’s Second District Court of Appeal threw out a six-location, three-hour geofence as unconstitutionally overbroad because it scooped up bystanders relaxing in their apartments. Although the court declined to suppress on good-faith grounds, the opinion is a warning that dragnet warrants will not survive scrutiny.

• Overbreadth arguments. Challenge wide radii or lengthy time windows, as a probable cause for each captured device is lacking.
• Particular flaws. Highlight vague language, giving police “unbridled discretion” when deciding which users are deanonymized.
• Good-faith limits. Argue that rapidly evolving case law and DOJ guidance put detectives on notice that generalized geofences are unconstitutional.

• Cell-Site Simulators (Stingrays/IMSI catchers). These devices masquerade as carrier towers, forcing nearby phones to reveal identifiers and real-time location. While CalECPA requires a warrant, records show LAPD and the Sheriff’s Department have used simulators extensively, sometimes in secret proceedings.
• Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs). Cameras mounted on patrol cars and intersections capture millions of plates daily; the Ninth Circuit’s United States v. Yang (2020) questioned warrantless database searches that reconstruct a suspect’s movements.
• Built-in Vehicle Telematics. Newer cars transmit live GPS to manufacturers; police may subpoena or directly ping these systems, raising Jones-type trespass concerns even without a physical tracker.
• Bluetooth/Wi-Fi Mapping. “Probe requests” from phones and smartwatches can place a person inside a specific store aisle; although rarely litigated, the same privacy principles apply.

• “No privacy in public travel”. We invoke the “mosaic theory”: an hour on public streets is not the same as 90 days of granular data that reveals the “whole of a person’s life.”
• “Good-faith reliance”. We show that detectives ignored precise statutory requirements or binding precedent, defeating the good-faith exception.
• “Inevitable discovery”. We emphasize the speculative nature of alternative leads and attack chain-of-custody gaps.
• “Third-party doctrine”. Carpenter limited the doctrine’s reach; users do not voluntarily expose detailed location data simply by owning a smartphone.

• Early Digital Forensics Review
  • Secure forensic images of any seized devices.
  • Subpoena carrier retention policies to challenge the authenticity of location logs.
• Technical Expert Collaboration
  • Partner with former telecom engineers and satellite-navigation specialists to explain false positives, tower-hand-off errors, and multipath distortion to the judge.
• Aggressive Pre-Trial Motions
  • File Penal Code §1538.5 motions citing Jones, Carpenter, and Meza.
  • Demand Frank's hearings where warrant affidavits omit key facts such as battery-swap entries onto private property.
• Tailored Litigation for Los Angeles Courts
  • Track local magistrate rulings on geofences and CSLI to predict how each judge views novel surveillance.
  • LAPD policy manuals and training bulletins obtained via Public Records Act requests should be used to prove systemic CalECPA violations.
• Negotiation & Trial Readiness
  • Suppression leverage often induces favorable plea offers or outright dismissals.
  • If the trial proceeds, we will prepare demonstrative exhibits showing the unreliability of location “heat maps” and the minimal corroboration of digital trails.

Q: “Can the police attach a tracker if my car is parked on the street?”
Not without a warrant. Jones treats the under-chassis placement as a physical trespass regardless of where the car is parked. Warrantless attachment in Los Angeles remains unconstitutional unless exigent circumstances exist.

Q: “What about my rideshare or delivery app data?”
Those logs are protected communications records under CalECPA. A subpoena is insufficient; law enforcement must obtain a probable-cause warrant or qualify for a rare emergency exception.

Q: “If I was arrested years ago, can I still challenge the GPS evidence?”
Possibly. New precedents can revive suppression arguments on appeals or habeas petitions if the search is ruled retroactively unconstitutional and the issue is preserved.

• Former Prosecutor's Insight. Founding attorney Michael Kraut served over 14 years as a Deputy District Attorney; he anticipates the government’s litigation playbook.
• Tech-Savvy Defense. We monitor emerging surveillance rulings on a weekly basis and collaborate with privacy rights organizations to stay ahead of the curve.
• Local Reputation. Judges and prosecutors downtown and in every Branch Court know our track record for meticulous Fourth-Amendment litigation.
• Personalized Attention. You speak directly with an attorney, not a paralegal, about every development in your case.

Prompt legal intervention is critical if you discover, or even suspect, that detectives used GPS, cell-site, geofence, or ALPR evidence against you. The clock to file suppression motions is short, and delays can waive your rights. Contact us today for a confidential consultation.

Kraut Law Group Criminal & DUI Lawyers, Inc.
6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1520
Los Angeles, CA 90028

888-334-6344
323-464-6453
Secure online from