Shawn Alvin Tracey v. State of Florida
152 So. 3d 504
| Fla. | 2014Background
- Shawn Tracey was arrested after law enforcement used real-time cell site location information (CSLI) obtained under a court order authorizing only a pen register/trap-and-trace to locate him; officers had sought only inbound/outbound numbers and certified relevance to an ongoing investigation.
- The pen-register order (Oct. 2007) did not request or establish probable cause for real-time or historical location tracking, yet the provider supplied real-time CSLI that officers used to follow Tracey into Broward County and to a residence; a search of his vehicle recovered >1 kg of cocaine.
- At trial, Tracey moved to suppress evidence derived from the real-time CSLI, arguing a warrant based on probable cause was required and that officers exceeded the scope of the order; the trial court denied suppression, finding no Fourth Amendment violation because Tracey was on public roads.
- The Fourth District affirmed, concluding that (1) the affidavit lacked probable cause and (2) statutory violations occurred but suppression was unavailable under the Florida Stored Communications Act; it relied on Smith/Knotts/Karo to hold no Fourth Amendment protection for movements on public roads.
- The Florida Supreme Court granted review, focused on whether real-time CSLI tracking is a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause and a warrant, and whether exclusion or good-faith exceptions apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether use of real-time CSLI to track a person is a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause and a warrant | Tracey: real-time CSLI tracking is a search; probable cause and a warrant required because tracking can invade private spaces and reveal intimate details | State: Knotts/Smith permit warrantless tracking of movements on public roads; user voluntarily conveys signal data to provider | Held: Real-time CSLI tracking is a Fourth Amendment search; probable cause and a warrant are required (Katz reasonable-expectation analysis applies) |
| Whether being on public roads eliminates Fourth Amendment protection for CSLI-based tracking | State: movements on public thoroughfares are observable and not protected (Knotts) | Tracey: CSLI-enabled tracking is technologically different and can reveal more than visual observation; may follow into private spaces | Held: Public-road observation alone does not defeat privacy; CSLI can invade protected areas and thus tracking is a search even on public roads |
| Whether statutory violations (chapter 934 / SCA analogues) preclude suppression of evidence | State: federal/state statutory schemes limit remedies; exclusion is not authorized under SCA/§934, so suppression not required | Tracey: statutory violation compounded Fourth Amendment problem; suppression appropriate when constitutional violation occurs | Held: Exclusionary rule applies for the constitutional Fourth Amendment violation here; statutory remedy limits do not bar suppression of evidence obtained via warrantless CSLI tracking |
| Whether the good-faith exception applies to officers who relied on the pen-register order or existing law | State: officers relied on a court order and legal precedent; good-faith exception should apply | Tracey: no warrant or binding precedent authorized real-time CSLI tracking; officers could not reasonably rely on the order for location tracking | Held: Good-faith exception does not apply where no warrant, order, or binding precedent authorized real-time CSLI tracking; suppression required |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (established reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (pen register/third-party disclosure doctrine)
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (beeper surveillance on public roads; no expectation of privacy in movements)
- United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (monitoring beeper into residence violates Fourth Amendment)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (sense-enhancing tech revealing home interior is a search)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (GPS device trespass and concurrence concerns about long-term electronic monitoring)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (categorical protection principles for modern cell phones)