467 P.3d 246
Ariz. Ct. App.2020Background
- On Dec. 4, 2012, D.M. was shot and killed during an armed robbery outside a Phoenix cabaret; two assailants fled with the victim’s money.
- Investigators traced communications among co-defendants’ phones and obtained an ex parte court order (pursuant to A.R.S. §13-1307 and 18 U.S.C. §2703) directing T‑Mobile to produce subscriber records and cell-site/location data for Conner for Dec. 2–15, 2012.
- T‑Mobile’s records lacked switch identifiers and used switch time zones, producing timestamp ambiguities; the State’s FBI expert (Agent Young) correlated and adjusted timestamps using other carriers’ records.
- Conner moved to suppress the cell-site location information (CSLI) under Carpenter v. United States and to preclude Agent Young’s testimony under Ariz. R. Evid. 702 and 704.
- The superior court denied suppression (finding the ex parte order issued on probable cause and substantially complied with warrant requirements) and allowed Agent Young to testify; Conner was convicted of first‑degree murder and armed robbery.
- On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting Conner’s Carpenter-based suppression claim and his challenges to the expert’s admissibility and the pre-trial evidentiary process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CSLI obtained via the 2013 ex parte order should be suppressed under Carpenter | State: the order was issued after a judicial probable-cause finding and was functionally equivalent to a warrant | Conner: Carpenter requires a warrant; the order wasn’t a warrant, lacked particularity/specificity and didn’t meet probable cause | Court: order substantially complied with warrant requirements, issued on probable cause; suppression denied |
| Whether Arizona court lacked jurisdiction to compel records stored/served out-of-state | State: Arizona may compel documents located elsewhere; T‑Mobile raised no objection and complied | Conner: order was served in New Jersey where records were stored, so Arizona lacked authority | Court: no jurisdictional defect shown; denial affirmed |
| Whether Agent Young’s CSLI/location testimony should be precluded under Rule 702 | State: expert’s methods were reliable, testimony was disclosed, and cross-examination/contrary evidence address any weaknesses | Conner: expert lacked key data (switch/azimuth/keys), methodology unreliable, differing expert conclusions undermine reliability | Court: admission was within trial court’s discretion; data limitations and differing conclusions go to weight, not admissibility |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by ending the pre-trial evidentiary hearing and limiting cross-examination | State: pre-trial Rule 702 hearing is discretionary and Conner later cross-examined the expert at trial | Conner: was denied complete opportunity to test expert before trial | Court: no abuse of discretion; Conner had trial cross-examination and hearing was not mandatory |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (historical CSLI is generally a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987) (new constitutional rules apply retroactively on direct review)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (non-exhaustive factors guide admissibility of scientific expert evidence)
- State ex rel. Montgomery v. Miller, 234 Ariz. 289 (App. 2014) (trial court acts as gatekeeper under Ariz. R. Evid. 702 to assess relevance and reliability)
- Frimmel v. Sanders, 236 Ariz. 232 (App. 2014) (search warrants may issue only upon probable cause)