254 So. 3d 986
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Sylvestre was charged with first‑degree murder and multiple armed robberies after surveillance video and other investigation linked him to a Boca Raton restaurant robbery.
- The State obtained a court order under Florida law requiring the carrier to disclose historical and real‑time cell‑site location information (CSLI Order) and a separate pen‑register/trap‑and‑trace order (Trap and Trace Order).
- The affidavit supporting a subsequent search warrant stated mobile tracking had been activated pursuant to a court order and placed the defendant’s phone inside a Fort Lauderdale residence; a search produced firearms, a mask, ammunition, and other evidence.
- At a suppression hearing, law enforcement testified the carrier’s CSLI/tower data could only narrow location to several square blocks, and detectives used a warrantless cell‑site simulator (StingRay) to pinpoint the phone inside the residence.
- The circuit court found the CSLI Order was supported by probable cause but suppressed evidence obtained from the warrantless use of the cell‑site simulator; the State appealed and the defendant cross‑appealed the probable‑cause finding.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Sylvestre's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CSLI Order was supported by probable cause | CSLI Order was properly issued; statutory process governed disclosure | Affidavit lacked facts connecting phone location to the robbery; statute does not require probable cause | Court affirmed: order supported by probable cause based on video ID and other facts |
| Whether the CSLI/Trap and Trace Orders authorized use of a cell‑site simulator | CSLI and Trap and Trace together permitted location tracking; no separate notice required | Use of a cell‑site simulator exceeded those orders and required a warrant | Court held the orders did not authorize independent use of a cell‑site simulator |
| Whether warrantless use of a cell‑site simulator was permissible | Simulator use was a permissible investigative tool under orders | Simulator use was a warrantless, invasive search implicating home privacy | Court held warrantless use was a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant; suppressed evidence |
| Whether State needed to disclose intent to use a cell‑site simulator | Non‑disclosure was permissible; not required by orders | State should have disclosed intent and obtained judicial authorization | Court concluded disclosure/authorization was required where simulator is more invasive; lack of warrant fatal |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (warrant generally required for historical CSLI due to privacy interests)
- Tracey v. State, 152 So. 3d 504 (Fla. 2014) (location signals transmitted for private use implicate privacy and judicial oversight)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (reasonable expectation of privacy test)
- Karo v. United States, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) (indiscriminate monitoring of beepers in private residences is a search)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (use of device not in general public use to explore home is a search)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (attaching GPS to vehicle is a search)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (warrant generally required to search digital contents of cell phones)