Commonwealth v. Estabrook, 472 Mass. 852

Background

Early July 2012: A home invasion and fatal shooting occurred in Billerica; eyewitness (victim's brother) identified multiple masked intruders and described two specifically (one heavyset in red shirt).
Investigation uncovered drug-related activity connected to Ashley Marshall and her associate Adam Bradley; call logs (administrative subpoenas) linked Bradley to Marshall around the time of the shooting.
On July 25, 2012, the Commonwealth obtained § 2703(d) orders (Stored Communications Act) for historical CSLI for Bradley and others covering July 1–15, 2012; Bradley's CSLI showed his phone near the area of the shooting.
Police interviewed Bradley (Aug. 2) and Estabrook (Aug. 8, Aug. 15, Sept. 27); Estabrook ultimately confessed on Sept. 27 and implicated Bradley; other independent evidence (hospital records, surveillance video, DNA on a latex glove, grand jury testimony) linked defendants to the crime.
In Nov. 2013 the police obtained search warrants for the same CSLI; defendants moved to suppress CSLI and statements as fruits of the earlier warrantless § 2703(d) access. The Superior Court denied suppression; interlocutory appeals followed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Bradley/Estabrook)	Held
Whether historical CSLI for a six-hour window may be obtained without a warrant beyond § 2703(d)	Six hours or less is too brief to implicate art. 14 privacy; § 2703(d) order suffices	Any request for multi-day CSLI (here two weeks) requires a warrant under art. 14	Court: A request for ≤6 hours of "telephone call" CSLI may be obtained with § 2703(d) alone; multi-day (two-week) requests require a warrant under art. 14
Whether requesting two weeks of CSLI but using only six hours of it avoids warrant requirement	Commonwealth urged that use-limitation should control (only six hours used at trial)	Defendants argued warrant required because the request covered two weeks	Held: Salient measure is duration requested, not portion used; warrant required for two-week request
Whether defendants' statements must be suppressed as fruits of the illegal CSLI acquisition	Many statements were attenuated or derived from independent investigation; admissible	All statements flowed from initial illegal CSLI and thus must be suppressed	Held: Suppression not automatic; most statements admissible because not obtained by exploitation of CSLI; but Bradley's answers made in direct response to CSLI-based confrontations (esp. Aug. 2) must be suppressed
Whether the 2013 search warrants for CSLI were tainted and require suppression of CSLI	Warrant affidavits contained ample probable cause from independent sources (eyewitness, hospital video/records, DNA on glove, grand jury testimony, statements)	Warrant was the product of exploitation of earlier illegal CSLI; thus tainted	Held: 2013 warrants supported by probable cause based on independent, untainted information; CSLI admitted

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Augustine, 467 Mass. 230 (2014) (established reasonable expectation of privacy in two-week historical CSLI and that probable cause/warrant required for such durations)
Commonwealth v. Bradshaw, 385 Mass. 244 (1982) (fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree and attenuation inquiry for statements)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (attenuation and purging primary taint principles)
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (attenuation test for admissibility of statements following illegal arrest/search)
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (independent source and inevitable discovery doctrines support admission of evidence obtained independently)
Commonwealth v. Frodyma, 393 Mass. 438 (1984) (independent source doctrine under Massachusetts law for evidence discovered after an unlawful search)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (exclusionary rule limits and good-faith exceptions)
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920) (foundational statement of fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree/independent source concept)