Key Takeaway: The Pennsylvania Superior Court held in Commonwealth v. Jones that Google Maps GPS timeline evidence may be introduced through lay testimony, without an expert witness, as long as the testimony does not involve scientific or technical explanations.

Commonwealth v. Jones: Facts of the Case

On June 18, 2024, Jones entered a Turkey Hill convenience store and directed the clerk to empty the cash register. During the investigation, police later connected Jones to the store clerk through a social media friend request, which revealed his identity.

At trial, the prosecution introduced screenshots of Google Maps “My Timeline” GPS data recovered from Jones’ cell phone and tablet. That data was used to place him at the Turkey Hill gas station at the time of the robbery.

Police obtained a search warrant for Jones’ devices and discovered that the Google Maps Timeline feature was enabled. When enabled, Google automatically calculates, stores, and displays a user’s historical location data without requiring any manual input from the user.

The Issue on Appeal: Was Expert Testimony Required?

On appeal, Jones argued that the trial court erred by allowing the Commonwealth to introduce Google Maps GPS timeline evidence without calling an expert witness to explain how the data was generated or whether it was reliable.

This raised questions under the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, including:

• Rule 701 (Lay Witness Opinion Testimony): When a non-expert witness may describe evidence based on personal perception.
• Rule 702 (Expert Testimony): When scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge is required to help the jury understand the evidence.

Understanding the Superior Court’s Decision in Commonwealth v. Jones

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the conviction and held that expert testimony was not required in this case.

The Court emphasized that the testifying police officer did not explain how Google calculates GPS data or offer technical opinions about its accuracy. Instead, the officer merely described what the Google Maps application displayed—information that was automatically generated and readily visible to any user.

The Court found it significant that Google Maps location data is:

• Automatically calculated
• Stored by the application
• Presented in a user-friendly format familiar to the average person

Because the testimony did not involve scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge, it qualified as lay opinion testimony under Rule 701.

When Is Expert Testimony Required for Digital Evidence in Pennsylvania?

Under Pennsylvania law, expert testimony is required only when digital evidence involves scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge beyond the understanding of an average juror.

A lay witness may testify about digital evidence when the testimony is:

1. Based on the witness’s personal observation
2. Helpful to understanding a fact at issue
3. Not dependent on scientific or technical expertise

If explaining the evidence requires specialized knowledge beyond that of an average juror, expert testimony would still be required.

What This Ruling Means for Online Privacy and Criminal Cases

This decision reduces the evidentiary burden on the Commonwealth to use Google Maps location data in criminal prosecutions without expert testimony.

There is a real risk that juries may place undue weight on app-based GPS data, despite the fact that:

• Location data may contain inaccuracies.
• Algorithms rely on assumptions and estimates.
• Data may be incomplete or misinterpreted.

While users can disable the “My Timeline” feature in Google Maps settings, many are unaware that this form of passive location tracking exists at all.

A Broader Shift Toward Easier Admission of Digital Surveillance Evidence

Commonwealth v. Jones reflects a broader trend toward the easier admission of digital surveillance evidence in criminal cases.

As smartphones and apps increasingly collect background location data, courts are allowing prosecutors to rely on that information with fewer procedural safeguards. While this evidence can be powerful, no technology is infallible—and defendants often lack visibility into how this data is generated or stored.  

Why This Decision Matters for Defendants’ Rights

Although defendants may no longer be able to exclude Google Maps GPS data solely on the basis that it was introduced without an expert, other legal challenges remain critical, including:

• Challenging the authentication of the evidence
• Questioning the chain of custody
• Exposing inaccuracies through cross-examination
• Contesting the scope of the search warrant
• Challenging how the data was extracted or preserved

An experienced criminal defense attorney can identify weaknesses in digital evidence and ensure that defendants’ constitutional rights are protected.

Charged With a Crime Involving Google Maps or Phone Location Data?

If law enforcement is using Google Maps location history or other digital evidence against you, the details matter. Search warrants, data extraction methods, and how evidence is presented to a jury can all affect the outcome of your case.

The law office of John F. McCaul offers free consultations to evaluate the digital evidence, identify weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, and protect your rights. Contact us today to speak with a Pennsylvania criminal defense attorney.