United States v. Davis (2014)

Last updated
United States v. Davis
US-CourtOfAppeals-11thCircuit-Seal.png
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Full case nameUnited States v. Quartavious Davis
DecidedMay 5, 2015 (2015-05-05)
Citation(s)No. 12-12928; 785 F.3d 498 (11th Cir. 2015)
Case history
Prior historyMot. to suppress denied, D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-20896-JAL-2; Affirmed, 754 F.3d 1205 (11th Cir.); rehearing en banc granted, opinion vacated, 573 F. App'x 925 (11th Cir. 2014)
Appealed from United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Subsequent history Cert. denied, Supreme Court

United States v. Quartavious Davis is a United States federal legal case that challenged the use in a criminal trial of location data obtained without a search warrant from MetroPCS, a cell phone service provider. Mobile phone tracking data had helped place the defendant in this case at the scene of several crimes, for which he was convicted. The defendant appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which found the warrantless data collection had violated his constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but declined to order a new trial because the evidence was collected in good faith. [1] The Eleventh Circuit has since vacated this decision pending a rehearing by the Eleventh Circuit en banc. United States v. Davis, 573 Fed. Appx. 925 (11th Cir. 2014). On 5 May 2015, the en banc order upheld the use of the information. [2] On 9th Nov 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear this case on appeal. [3]

Contents

Quartavious Davis, on trial with five co-defendants, was convicted on several counts of Hobbs Act robbery, conspiracy, and knowing possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence and sentenced to over 161 years in prison. He appealed on several grounds, principally arguing that the court admitted stored cell site location information obtained without a warrant, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The government had obtained the data under a provision of the Stored Communications Act that only requires showing "that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the... records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation." (18 U.S.C.   § 2703(d)). That provision does not require showing probable cause, which would have been needed for a warrant. [4]

Eleventh Circuit ruling

The Circuit Court largely relied on precedent set in Smith v. Maryland and U.S. v. Miller, which established the Third Party Doctrine.

By relying on this precedent, the court said that Davis had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his Cell Site Location Data, as it did not meet the two questions put forth in Katz to establish reasonable expectation. First, has the individual manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the object of the challenged search? Second, is society willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable? [2]

18 U.S.C.   § 2703(d) Contains a provision that allows for the collection of data like that used in this case via a special court order, often referred to as a "D-order". These orders allow for the collection of more data than a subpoena would, but less than a warrant. As a tradeoff, these "D-orders" require less than probable cause to obtain.

Because of its perceived similarity to Miller and Smith, the court declared, "Based on the SCA and governing Supreme Court precedent, we too conclude the government's obtaining a § 2703(d) court order for the production of MetroPCS's business records did not violate the Fourth Amendment" [2] and "Davis can assert neither ownership nor possession of the third-party's business records he sought to suppress". [2]

Background

Typical cell site antennas Top of cell tower located on Sexton Mountain - Beaverton, Oregon.JPG
Typical cell site antennas

Cellular telephones make optimal use of limited radio spectrum and their short transmission range, due to low power, by always connecting to a radio antenna at a nearby facility, known as a cell site. These facilities are typically on a tower or tall building and the cellular service provider places many such cell sites in an urban area to cover the needs of its customers. As a cell phone caller moves, their connection is automatically handed-off to another cell site that is close by, as needed. Even when a call is not in progress, each cell phone reports changes in location to allow incoming calls to be routed to it. Service providers record each site a user connects with, along with the time of connection. This information can be used to track a cell phone user's movements throughout the day. as well. [4] (p. 18)

The government attempted to distinguish cell phone tracking by pointing out that it has long been established that telephone users do not have an expectation of privacy in the numbers they call. The 11th Circuit noted that while phone users realize they are giving the phone company the number of the person that they are calling, they are not generally aware that they are being tracked. In support it cited an argument made by the prosecutor to the jury that the defendants "probably had no idea that by bringing their cell phones with them to these robberies, they were allowing [their cell service provider] and now all of you to follow their movements on the days and at the times of the robberies... " [4] (p. 22)

The 11th Circuit held "that cell site location information is within the subscriber's reasonable expectation of privacy. The obtaining of that data without a warrant is a Fourth Amendment violation." Despite finding that the evidence was obtained in an unconstitutional manner, the court denied "appellant's motion to exclude the fruits of that electronic search and seizure under the 'good faith' exception to the exclusionary rule recognized in United States v. Leon," noting that the data was obtained under a court order, though not a warrant. [4] (p.23 ff)

See also

Related Research Articles

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution 1791 amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, it sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

A pen register, or dialed number recorder (DNR), is an electronic device that records all numbers called from a particular telephone line. The term has come to include any device or program that performs similar functions to an original pen register, including programs monitoring Internet communications.

Mobile phone tracking Identifying the location of a mobile phone

Mobile phone tracking is a process for identifying the location of a mobile phone, whether stationary or moving. Localization may be effected by a number of technologies, such as the multilateration of radio signals between (several) cell towers of the network and the phone or by simply using GNSS. To locate a mobile phone using multilateration of mobile radio signals, the phone must emit at least the idle signal to contact nearby antenna towers and does not require an active call. The Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) is based on the phone's signal strength to nearby antenna masts.

Expectation of privacy is a legal test which is crucial in defining the scope of the applicability of the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is related to, but is not the same as, a right to privacy, a much broader concept which is found in many legal systems. Overall, expectations of privacy can be subjective or objective.

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), was a Supreme Court case, holding that the installation and use of a pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and hence no warrant was required.

In United States criminal law, the border search exception is a doctrine that allows searches and seizures at international borders and their functional equivalent without a warrant or probable cause. The doctrine is not regarded as an exception to the Fourth Amendment, but rather to its requirement for a warrant or probable cause. Balanced against the sovereign's interests at the border are the Fourth Amendment rights of entrants. Not only is the expectation of privacy less at the border than in the interior, the Fourth Amendment balance between the interests of the government and the privacy right of the individual is also struck much more favorably to the government at the border. This balance at international borders means that routine searches are "reasonable" there, and therefore do not violate the Fourth Amendment's proscription against "unreasonable searches and seizures".

Stored Communications Act

The Stored Communications Act is a law that addresses voluntary and compelled disclosure of "stored wire and electronic communications and transactional records" held by third-party internet service providers (ISPs). It was enacted as Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA).

United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that recording conversations using concealed radio transmitters worn by informants does not violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and thus does not require a warrant.

<i>United States v. Warshak</i>

United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 is a criminal case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holding that government agents violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights by compelling his Internet service provider (ISP) to turn over his emails without first obtaining a search warrant based on probable cause. However, constitutional violation notwithstanding, the evidence obtained with these emails was admissible at trial because the government agents relied in good faith on the Stored Communications Act (SCA). The court further declared that the SCA is unconstitutional to the extent that it allows the government to obtain emails without a warrant.

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

The Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance Act was a bill introduced in the U.S. Congress in 2011 that attempted to limit government surveillance using geolocation information such as signals from GPS systems in mobile devices. The bill was sponsored by Sen. Ron Wyden and Rep. Jason Chaffetz. Since its initial proposal in June 2011, the GPS Act awaits consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as the House.

People v. Diaz, 51 Cal. 4th 84, 244 P.3d 501, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 105 was a Supreme Court of California case, which held that police are not required to obtain a warrant to search information contained within a cell phone in a lawful arrest. In a sting operation conducted by local police, the defendant, Gregory Diaz, was arrested for the sale of the illicit drug ecstasy and his cellphone, containing incriminating evidence, was seized and searched without a warrant. In trial court proceedings, Diaz motioned to suppress the information obtained from his cellphone, which was denied on the grounds that the search of his cellphone was incident to a lawful arrest. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the court's decision and was later upheld by the California Supreme Court. In 2014, the United States Supreme Court overruled that position in Riley v. California and held that without a warrant, police may not search the digital information on a cellphone that has been seized incident to arrest.

<i>United States v. Graham</i>

United States v. Graham, 846 F. Supp. 2d 384, was a Maryland District Court case in which the Court held that historical cell site location data is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Reacting to the precedent established by the recent Supreme Court case United States v. Jones in conjunction with the application of the third party doctrine, Judge Richard D. Bennett, found that "information voluntarily disclosed to a third party ceases to enjoy Fourth Amendment protection" because that information no longer belongs to the consumer, but rather to the telecommunications company that handles the transmissions records. The historical cell site location data is then not subject to the privacy protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment standard of probable cause, but rather to the Stored Communications Act, which governs the voluntary or compelled disclosure of stored electronic communications records.

The third-party doctrine is a United States legal doctrine that holds that people who voluntarily give information to third parties—such as banks, phone companies, internet service providers (ISPs), and e-mail servers—have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in that information. A lack of privacy protection allows the United States government to obtain information from third parties without a legal warrant and without otherwise complying with the Fourth Amendment prohibition against search and seizure without probable cause and a judicial search warrant.

<i>In re Application of the United States for Historical Cell Site Data</i>

In re Application of the United States for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the government can access cell site records without a warrant. Specifically, the court held that court orders under the Stored Communications Act compelling cell phone providers to disclose historical cell site information are not per se unconstitutional.

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional.

Mosaic theory (US law) US legal theory about admissible evidence gathered from many seemingly separate pieces of information

The mosaic theory is a legal doctrine in American courts for considering issues of information collection, government transparency, and search and seizure, especially in cases involving invasive or large-scale data collection by government entities. The theory takes its name from mosaic tile art: while an entire picture can be seen from a mosaic's tiles at a distance, no clear picture emerges from viewing a single tile in isolation. The mosaic theory calls for a cumulative understanding of data collection by law enforcement and analyzes searches "as a collective sequence of steps rather than individual steps."

<i>R v Fearon</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Fearon, 2014 SCC 77 is a leading section 8 Canadian constitutional law case, concerning the constitutionality of warrantless law enforcement searches of the contents of a cell phone incident to arrest.

Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ____ (2018), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the privacy of historical cell site location information (CSLI). The Court held, in a 5–4 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, that the government violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution by accessing historical CSLI records containing the physical locations of cellphones without a search warrant.

Digital Search and Seizure refers to the ability of the United States Government to obtain and read an individual's private digital correspondence and material under The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

References

  1. ↑ Jacob Kastrenakes (11 June 2014). "Warrantless cellphone location tracking is illegal, US circuit court rules". theverge.com. Vox Media, Inc . Retrieved 14 June 2014.
  2. 1 2 3 4 United States v. Quartavious Davis(11th Cir.5 May 2015). Text
  3. ↑ Ruger, Todd. "Supreme Court Passes on Cell Phone Tracking Case". Roll Call. Retrieved 2015-11-10.
  4. 1 2 3 4 David Bryan Sentelle, C.J. (11 June 2014). "United States of America v. Quartavious Davis – No. 12-12928 – D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-20896-JAL-2" (PDF). Retrieved 2014-12-14.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.