Commonwealth v. Jordan
33 Mass. L. Rptr. 180
Mass. Super. Ct.2015Background
- Boston Police obtained a six-week warrant (Aug 1–Sep 12, 2013) for a specific cell number from MetroPCS seeking CSLI (cell-site tower locations and GPS), incoming/outgoing texts, subscriber info, cell sites, and contacts; records were returned to police.
- The arrest-target was Michael Jordan after a confidential informant (C.I.) told police someone named “Michael” said he killed victim Ahmir Lee over drug dealing; affidavit did not describe the C.I.’s basis of knowledge or reliability.
- Multiple eyewitnesses gave varying physical descriptions of the shooter and a boxy cream/gray/beige car with a leather/ragtop (no plate); descriptions were inconsistent and matched many features broadly.
- Detective Ruiz located Jordan via records and surveillance: FIOs listed a Michael Jordan (5'4", 200 lbs, born 1987), Jordan’s monitored Chrysler New Yorker (vinyl/leather half-top) was seen near his home and observed leaving about four hours before the murder; police later could not locate the vehicle.
- Police corroborated the phone number to Jordan via college records and an administrative subpoena confirming the number was assigned to him and active at the time of the murder.
- Court suppressed CSLI (including registration CSLI), texts, and contacts obtained from MetroPCS for lack of probable cause and because Jordan had a reasonable expectation of privacy in those categories; court denied suppression for subscriber identity and call-detail metadata (dates/times/numbers).
Issues
| Issue | Jordan's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jordan has a constitutionally protected privacy interest in historic CSLI (telephone-call and registration CSLI) | CSLI (including registration pings) reveals detailed location history and is protected; warrant and probable cause required for >2 weeks | CSLI are provider business records not entitled to full protection; third-party doctrine applies | Court: Jordan has reasonable expectation of privacy in both telephone-call and registration CSLI; warrant/probable cause required for the six-week period and suppression granted |
| Whether texts and contact lists stored by provider are protected | Texts/contacts are private communications; Riley and related authority protect such content even if cloud-stored | If stored with provider, third-party doctrine reduces expectation of privacy | Court: Text messages and contacts (including cloud-stored) are protected; suppressed for lack of probable cause |
| Whether affidavit established probable cause linking Jordan to murder and to show that CSLI/texts/contacts would produce evidence | Affidavit insufficient: eyewitness descriptions were inconsistent and generic; vehicle description and surveillance were not distinctive; C.I. was uncorroborated and basis/credibility not shown | Investigator relied on surveillance, FIOs, vehicle records, and C.I. tip to justify seeking provider records | Court: Probable cause not established; C.I. unreliable and uncorroborated; affidavit failed to show requested records would produce evidence of murder; suppressed |
| Whether subscriber identity and call-detail metadata are suppressible | These are not private because voluntarily conveyed to provider | Provider business records permissible to obtain and use | Court: No reasonable privacy expectation for subscriber identity and call detail (dates/times/numbers); suppression denied for those categories |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Augustine, 467 Mass. 230 (SJC) (historic telephone-call CSLI implicates privacy; probable-cause warrant required for >2 weeks)
- Commonwealth v. Augustine, 472 Mass. 448 (SJC) (clarifying probable-cause standards for CSLI warrants)
- Commonwealth v. Estabrook, 472 Mass. 852 (SJC) (short-duration CSLI requests may not implicate privacy; distinction by duration)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (cellphone searches generally require warrants; protection extends to digital content)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in dialed telephone numbers recorded by third party)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (GPS tracking and prolonged location monitoring implicate Fourth Amendment privacy concerns)
- Warshak v. United States, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir.) (subscriber has reasonable expectation of privacy in email content stored with provider under Fourth Amendment)