Marcus Zanders v. State of Indiana
73 N.E.3d 178
| Ind. | 2017Background
- Two armed liquor-store robberies occurred; police linked an Ohio phone number used to contact one store to Marcus Zanders via a public Facebook profile showing posts (cash, bottles) after the robberies.
- Indiana detectives faxed Sprint at 1:57 p.m. requesting 30 days of historical, active, network-based cell-site location information (CSLI); two minutes later Ohio officers located and arrested Zanders in a red Pontiac.
- Police executed warrants on family residences and seized cash, clothing matching the robber, a handgun, cigarettes with Indiana tax stamp, and tequila bottles like those stolen.
- At trial the State admitted Sprint’s historical CSLI and Detective Pieczonka’s testimony summarizing it; the jury convicted Zanders on robbery and weapons counts and he pleaded guilty to habitual-offender enhancement.
- Zanders appealed, arguing improper in-court ID, that obtaining CSLI without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment and Indiana Article 1, Section 11, and that the detective improperly gave expert testimony; the Court of Appeals reversed on Fourth Amendment grounds.
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed: no Fourth Amendment search under the third-party doctrine; Article 1, Section 11 search-and-seizure analysis under Litchfield justified the request; detective testimony was permissible as skilled-witness testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Zanders' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether obtaining historical, active, network-based CSLI from Sprint without a warrant was a Fourth Amendment search | Zanders: CSLI was not voluntarily shared; users don’t meaningfully convey tower data and thus had reasonable expectation of privacy | State: third-party doctrine applies; users know phones connect to towers and providers keep business records for billing | Held: No Fourth Amendment search — third-party doctrine applies (Miller/Smith framework) |
| Whether Indiana Article 1, Section 11 required a warrant for the same CSLI | Zanders: Section 11 provides greater protection; third-party doctrine should not control; CSLI intrusion significant and warrant feasible | State: Section 11 uses totality-of-the-circumstances (Litchfield); here high suspicion, low intrusion, significant law-enforcement need justified request without warrant | Held: No Section 11 violation — applying Litchfield, the request was reasonable under the circumstances |
| Whether Detective Pieczonka improperly testified as an expert about CSLI | Zanders: Detective offered expert opinion beyond jury’s knowledge without proper foundation | State: Detective testified as a skilled witness summarizing provider records based on training; disputes go to weight, not admissibility | Held: Testimony admissible as skilled-witness testimony; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether in-court identification required mistrial | Zanders: Improper in-court ID prejudiced jury | State: Identification did not place defendant in grave peril; other evidence supported conviction | Held: Denial of mistrial affirmed (Court of Appeals affirmed on this issue summary) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) (no Fourth Amendment protection for business records voluntarily conveyed to third parties)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (pen register numbers conveyed to phone company are not protected by reasonable expectation of privacy)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (search requires either common-law trespass or violation of reasonable expectation of privacy)
- United States v. Graham, 824 F.3d 421 (4th Cir. en banc 2016) (applies third-party doctrine to historical CSLI)
- In re Application of the U.S. for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2013) (applies third-party doctrine to CSLI)
- United States v. Davis, 785 F.3d 498 (11th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (applies third-party doctrine to historical CSLI)
- Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356 (Ind. 2005) (Section 11 reasonableness test balancing suspicion, intrusion, and law-enforcement need)
- McCowan v. State, 10 N.E.3d 522 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (Court of Appeals applied Litchfield to historical CSLI and found reasonableness)