Marcus Zanders v. State of Indiana, 58 N.E.3d 254

Two armed robberies occurred on Jan 31 and Feb 6, 2015; victims described an African-American male in masks/hoodies; a red Pontiac G6 was observed leaving one scene.
Police linked a phone number used to call one store before a robbery to Marcus Zanders’s Facebook page, which contained photos/videos of cash and liquor shortly after the robberies.
Police located Zanders in Ohio the day after one robbery, interviewed him, and while interviewing him obtained 30 days of his cell-provider call-detail and cell-site location records via an emergency, warrantless request.
Provider records showed Zanders’s phone near both robbery sites around the times of the crimes; searches of his mother’s and brother’s homes yielded clothing, liquor, cash, and a handgun.
At trial the jury convicted Zanders of two counts of robbery with a deadly weapon and two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm; he admitted habitual-offender status and received an aggregate 61-year sentence.
On appeal the court (majority) affirmed denial of a mistrial for an in-court identification issue but reversed and vacated convictions because the warrantless seizure of historical cell-site/location data violated the Fourth Amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of mistrial after State elicited witness testimony tying a Facebook news video to Zanders was an abuse of discretion	State: testimony described witness seeing a news video; no prohibited in-court identification occurred and limiting instruction cured any prejudice	Zanders: the testimony effectively identified him in court via the video and was prejudicial given mistaken-identity defense	Court: Denial of mistrial affirmed — testimony complied with limiting instruction and jury decides weight; no grave peril to defendant
Whether warrantless acquisition of historical cell-site/location data from provider violated Fourth Amendment	State: provider owns the business records; data production was a request for third-party business records, not a government search	Zanders: historical location data is not voluntarily conveyed and reveals detailed, continuous location information—society recognizes a reasonable expectation of privacy	Court: Warrantless seizure violated Fourth Amendment — user has reasonable expectation of privacy in historical location data; warrant required; convictions reversed

Parker v. State, 358 N.E.2d 110 (Ind. 1976) (due-process limits on suggestive identifications)
Brown v. State, 577 N.E.2d 221 (Ind. 1991) (in-court ID admissible if independent basis exists)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test)
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (GPS tracking and Fourth Amendment principles)
Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (third-party doctrine for dialing information)
United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) (no expectation of privacy in bank records voluntarily conveyed to bank)
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (cell phones contain highly private digital data; warrants generally required)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (limits on technology-enabled searches of private spaces)
Wertz v. State, 41 N.E.3d 276 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (reasonable expectation of privacy in historical location data from GPS devices)