Commonwealth v. Augustine, 467 Mass. 230

Background

Julaine Jules murdered; investigation began Aug 2004; defendant linked as former boyfriend; CSLI records sought for ~14 days from Sprint; §2703(d) order issued Sept 22, 2004; CSLI reportedly included call records with cell-site IDs and location data; motion to suppress CSLI granted; case remanded for probable-cause analysis under art.14; opinion holds CSLI is a search under art.14 and requires warrant, remanding for further factual development.
CSLI obtained via court-ordered §2703(d) order; CSLI period extended beyond 14 days; CSLI data includes cell-site IDs and location coordinates; magnitude of CSLI (about 64 pages) influenced privacy analysis; record expansion permitted on remand to assess probable cause under art.14.
Court distinguishes between “telephone CSLI” (two-week records for calls) and “registration CSLI” (continuous seven-second registrations); court emphasizes modern cellular technology and privacy implications; ultimately concludes new rule: generally require a warrant for CSLI under art.14, subject to remand for probable cause assessment.
Decision vacates suppression order and remands for Superior Court to determine if the 2004 §2703(d) application met art.14 probable-cause standard; opinion announces prospective rule requiring warrant for CSLI, with Teague retroactivity considerations; dissent argues third-party doctrine should apply to telephone CSLI and criticizes the majority’s treatment of CSLI as akin to GPS/registration data.
This case also discusses the broader privacy implications of CSLI in the digital age and contrasts historical CSLI with potentially more precise, future data collection.
Record notes the Commonwealth’s possible pursuit of CSLI from Jules’s provider, not included in record.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CSLI obtained via §2703(d) order is a search under art.14	Commonwealth argues no state action and no privacy interest	Jones/Law requires warrant due to privacy stake in CSLI	CSLI production with two-week period is a search; warrant required; remanded for probable cause assessment
Whether there was state action	Data captured by Sprint; Commonwealth not actively collecting	§2703(d) compelled disclosure; state action existed	State action present; suppression proper absent remand
Whether defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy in CSLI	CSLI is private location information; third-party doctrine not controlling	Third-party doctrine defeats privacy expectation	Defendant had reasonable privacy interest; art.14 warrant required
Whether exclusionary rule applies and new rule retroactivity	Even if error, deterrence and reliance on §2703(d) justifies no automatic exclusion	New rule for CSLI should apply; Teague retroactivity applies	Remanded to consider probable-cause standard; court announces new rule but retroactivity limited to on-direct-review cases

Key Cases Cited

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (U.S. 1979) (third-party doctrine; no privacy in dialed numbers when disclosed to phone company)
United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (U.S. 1976) (bank records do not reveal privacy interest in contents)
Commonwealth v. Vinnie, 428 Mass. 161 (Mass. 1998) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in telephone billing records under art. 14)
Commonwealth v. Cote, 407 Mass. 827 (Mass. 1990) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in telephone messages)
Commonwealth v. Rousseau, 465 Mass. 372 (Mass. 2013) (GPS tracking; privacy in movements over time; art.14)
Commonwealth v. Connolly, 454 Mass. 808 (Mass. 2009) (art.14 privacy; probable cause standard for CSLI)
Jones v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 945 (U.S. 2012) (GPS tracking; long-term surveillance privacy concerns)
State v. Earls, 214 N.J. 564 (N.J. 2013) (cell-site data privacy; public-private data concerns)
In re Application of the U.S. for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2013) (cites modern CSLI privacy debates)