United States v. Paciano Lizarraga-Tirado
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10256, 97 Fed. R. Serv. 1190, 789 F.3d 1107 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Data automatically generated by a computer, such as a placemarker on a digital map created from GPS coordinate inputs, is not a 'statement' made by a 'person' and therefore does not constitute hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Challenges to the reliability of such evidence should be addressed through the rules of authentication, not the rule against hearsay.
Facts:
- On January 17, 2003, the defendant was arrested by Border Patrol agents near the United States-Mexico border.
- The arrest occurred on a dark night in a remote location.
- The defendant claimed he was on the Mexico side of the border when he was arrested.
- The arresting agents, Garcia and Nunez, testified that they were certain the arrest occurred north of the border, inside the United States.
- Agent Garcia used a handheld GPS device to contemporaneously record the geographic coordinates of the arrest location.
- To illustrate the location, the government created an exhibit using a Google Earth satellite image of the area.
- This exhibit included a digital 'tack' labeled with the GPS coordinates Garcia had recorded, showing the location to be north of the border.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States charged the defendant in U.S. District Court with illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
- At trial, the government introduced a Google Earth satellite image with a GPS tack as evidence.
- Defense counsel objected to the admission of the image, arguing it was inadmissible hearsay.
- The district court overruled the objection and admitted the exhibit into evidence.
- The defendant was convicted and subsequently appealed the conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing the district court erred in admitting the evidence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Google Earth satellite image containing a computer-generated tack labeled with GPS coordinates constitute an out-of-court statement by a person for the purposes of the hearsay rule?
Opinions:
Majority - Kozinski, Circuit Judge
No. A Google Earth satellite image with a computer-generated tack is not hearsay. The satellite image itself, like a photograph, makes no 'assertion' and is therefore not a statement. The computer-generated tack and its corresponding GPS coordinates are also not hearsay because the Federal Rules of Evidence define a 'statement' as an assertion made by a 'person.' In this case, although a person inputs the GPS coordinates, the Google Earth program performs the analysis and places the tack on the map without any further human intervention or assertion. The relevant assertion—that the tack is accurately placed at the labeled coordinates—is made by the machine, not a person. Therefore, it falls outside the definition of hearsay. Any concerns about the accuracy or reliability of the machine's output are matters of authentication under Federal Rule of Evidence 901, not hearsay.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the critical distinction between human assertions and machine-generated data under the hearsay rule, particularly for digital evidence. By holding that purely machine-generated output is not a 'statement' by a 'person,' the court shifts the evidentiary challenge for such evidence from hearsay to authentication. This precedent streamlines the admission of a wide range of computer-generated evidence, like GPS data and system logs, requiring the proponent to prove the system's reliability rather than overcoming a hearsay objection. The ruling aligns the Ninth Circuit with other federal circuits that have concluded machine statements are not hearsay.
