State v. Andrews
134 A.3d 324
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2016Background
- On May 5, 2014 Baltimore police obtained a pen register/trap & trace order and used an ATT team plus a Hailstorm (cell‑site simulator) to locate Kerron Andrews, who was wanted on an arrest warrant for an April shooting.
- Hailstorm actively impersonated a cell tower, induced phones to transmit identifiers, and pinpointed Andrews inside 5032 Clifton Avenue; officers entered with consent from the resident, arrested Andrews, later obtained a search warrant, and seized a gun from a couch.
- Andrews moved to suppress all evidence from the residence, arguing the warrantless use of Hailstorm was an unreasonable Fourth Amendment search; the circuit court granted suppression and the State appealed.
- The suppression court found the pen register order did not authorize Hailstorm use, that the Hailstorm use violated the Fourth Amendment, and that the subsequent search warrant was tainted because its probable‑cause nexus derived from the Hailstorm information.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed: it held real‑time location data obtained by a cell‑site simulator is a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable‑cause authorization; the pen register statute did not authorize Hailstorm; and the search warrant and seized evidence were fruit of the poisonous tree.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Andrews) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether use of a cell‑site simulator is a Fourth Amendment search | Not a search; simulator merely reads IDs phones already send to towers; no reasonable expectation of privacy | Active device forces phone to transmit and yields precise, real‑time location—invades privacy | Use of a cell‑site simulator to obtain real‑time CSLI is a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant |
| Whether the Maryland pen register/trap & trace order authorized Hailstorm use | The order (which referenced cellular tracking and used "probable cause" language) sufficed as the functional equivalent of a warrant | Statute authorizes passive pen registers/trap & trace only; active pinging/tracking via simulator is outside that scheme | The pen register statute does not authorize cell‑site simulators; the order did not substitute for a warrant |
| Applicability of the third‑party doctrine to Hailstorm‑obtained CSLI | Users voluntarily convey location to carriers; third‑party doctrine removes expectation of privacy | CSLI for real‑time tracking is not voluntarily conveyed; Hailstorm directly elicits identifiers—no third‑party conveyance | Third‑party doctrine does not apply to Hailstorm use here; data was obtained directly by police |
| Whether exclusionary rule/Good‑faith exception bars suppression of evidence seized after Hailstorm | Officers relied in good faith on pen‑register order and later search warrant; exclusion unwarranted | Warrant and warrant application depended solely on tainted Hailstorm information; good‑faith exception cannot save fruit of poisonous tree | Because the search warrant’s probable‑cause nexus derived from the unconstitutional Hailstorm use, evidence was properly excluded; good‑faith exception did not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (cell phones hold vast private data; digital searches generally require a warrant)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (Fourth Amendment protects people, not just places; reasonable expectation of privacy test)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (use of device not in general public use to explore home interior is a search)
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (long‑term electronic location surveillance implicates Fourth Amendment; trespass and Katz analyses)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (pen register and third‑party doctrine principles)
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) (no Fourth Amendment privacy in information voluntarily conveyed to third parties)
- United States v. Graham, 796 F.3d 332 (4th Cir.) (2015) (CSLI not voluntarily conveyed; reasonable expectation of privacy in location data)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule, and its limits)
- United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) (monitoring a beeper inside a home can be a search; warrant requirement considerations)
- Redmond v. State, 213 Md. App. 163 (2013) (evidence obtained during illegal entry cannot be used to establish probable cause for a subsequent warrant)