Court of Arizona Rules on GPS Data Access in Draper v. Gentry

The case Draper v. Gentry was filed in the Supreme Court of Arizona. The petitioner was Lane Draper, and the respondent judge was Jo Lynn Gentry, with the State of Arizona and Jordon Lee Nez as the real parties in interest. This case originated from the Superior Court in Maricopa County, case number CR2020-127377-001, and had already been ruled on by the Court of Appeals, Division One.

The case arose from the murder of Grant Draper, with differing accounts from the surviving individuals involved: Lane Draper, Jordon Lee Nez, and Jackson. A 911 call was made about a truck obstructing a parking space, neighbors reported hearing a loud noise, and the police discovered a knife in Draper's truck. Nez attempted to obtain GPS data from Draper’s truck to support a third-party defense, suggesting Draper and Jackson as possible suspects. However, the court denied Nez's motion to compel this evidence.

Legal Proceedings and Analysis

The trial court later allowed the extraction of GPS data from Draper’s truck for in-camera review but denied Nez’s request for direct disclosure. The court determined that Nez had a constitutional right to the data but restricted the time period for which the data could be extracted. Draper then filed a motion to clarify, requesting a protective order for his address and limiting who could be present during the extraction process. The court ruled that Nez's counsel could be present and detailed the extraction process. Following this, Draper petitioned for special action with the Court of Appeals, but the petition was denied.

The case was reviewed to determine the appropriate standard for a discovery request, balancing Nez's right to present a defense with Draper’s rights under the Victims' Bill of Rights (VBR), the Fourth Amendment, and the Arizona Constitution. The discussion included the "reasonable possibility" standard for evidentiary disclosure from a crime victim, referencing Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.1(g) and the Fourth Amendment’s "probable cause" requirement. The case explored whether a court order constituted state action and how GPS data might be protected under the Fourth Amendment, differentiating between a warrant and a motion for pretrial disclosure.

Constitutional Considerations and Conclusion

The constitutionality of a governmental seizure under the Fourth Amendment was examined, and Draper invoked Arizona's privacy clause to protect against disclosure. The case clarified that a court order constituted "authority of law" under this clause. Draper’s rights under the VBR were detailed, with the case acknowledging the conflict between Draper’s VBR rights and Nez's constitutional right to present a defense.

The case referenced Vanders II, which dealt with the standard when a defendant requests a victim's confidential medical records. It discussed the "substantial need" requirement for evidence of constitutional significance, also referencing Roper, which established the standard for determining a need of constitutional dimension. The distinction between this case and Vanders II was made due to the involvement of a third party in the data extraction process.

The court examined whether the data extraction process constituted direct disclosure to the defendant and noted that Nez had met the "reasonable possibility" standard, as his third-party defense was not considered a fishing expedition. Safeguards were discussed to minimize disruption to Draper, and the case emphasized the distinction between direct and indirect disclosure, with the "substantial probability" standard being more demanding.

The Supreme Court of Arizona vacated the trial court order and remanded the matter for further proceedings.