97 N.E.3d 367
Mass. App. Ct.2018Background
- Homicide investigation into Josener Dorisca led police to track a phone used by Cassio Vertil; the phone was registered to defendant Stanley Fredericq at 220–222 Howard St., Apt. 2.
- Police obtained a 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) order requiring the carrier to ``ping'' the phone every 15 minutes prospectively for several days (real‑time CSLI); the tracking led to identification of occupants of a brown Toyota and ultimately to Howard Street.
- Officers went to 220 Howard Street, obtained verbal permission from occupants to search units for Dorisca; Troopers then spoke to Fredericq in an attic room, read Miranda rights, and obtained his written consent to search.
- Search of Fredericq’s bedroom produced cash; a narcotics dog led officers to a crawl space in the attic containing ~2 kg of suspected cocaine (pillowcase matched one in the Toyota).
- Trial court found CSLI was obtained without a warrant; third motion judge held Fredericq had standing and that the consent and bedroom evidence were tainted by exploitation of the illegal CSLI, but the cocaine in the common attic crawl space was admissible.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Fredericq's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge CSLI-based search | Fredericq lacked expectation of privacy in the phone used by another | As registered subscriber and person tracked, Fredericq has standing | Fredericq had both possessory standing (subscriber/billing address) and actual standing (his movements were tracked) |
| Whether CSLI required a warrant and was unlawfully obtained | Conceded CSLI was unlawfully obtained; alternatively argued attenuation/probable‑cause exceptions | CSLI was a warrant‑required search and police exploited it to develop probable cause and obtain consent | CSLI (prospective pings) required a warrant under Augustine; here it was unlawfully obtained |
| Whether Fredericq's consent and bedroom cash were tainted (fruit of illegal CSLI) | Consent and statements attenuated from illegality; other independent evidence supported search | Consent and statements flowed from confrontation based on CSLI and thus were tainted | Consent and statements were insufficiently attenuated and must be suppressed; cash in bedroom suppressed |
| Admissibility of cocaine found in common attic crawl space | Evidence was discovered by exploitation of CSLI but space was common area; alternatively, common‑area search valid without consent | Cocaine discovered as fruit of CSLI visit; suppression required | Crawl space was a common area open to tenants; no reasonable expectation of privacy — cocaine admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Augustine, 467 Mass. 230 (warrant required for compelled CSLI production) (court recognized privacy interest in CSLI)
- Commonwealth v. Estabrook, 472 Mass. 852 (2015) (attenuation and exploitation analysis for tainted electronic evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Rousseau, 465 Mass. 372 (passenger’s expectation of privacy when vehicle occupant is tracked)
- Commonwealth v. Gentile, 466 Mass. 817 (consent closely tied to earlier illegality is not attenuated)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 453 Mass. 203 (standing analysis for searches)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (privacy expectations for modern cell phones)