932 N.W.2d 792
Minn.2019Background
- Defendant Nigeria Lee Harvey was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and attempted first-degree premeditated murder for a July 27, 2015 shooting; victim A.A. survived and identified Harvey as the shooter.
- Police obtained cell-site location information (CSLI) for Harvey’s phone after linking a contact name on the victim’s recovered phone to Harvey; the court order was issued under Minn. Stat. § 626A.28 but contained an explicit probable-cause finding.
- FBI Agent James Berni analyzed Sprint CSLI and performed a GAR drive test (drive-test footprint evidence) to opine on the phone’s location; the district court held a Frye-Mack (Rule 702) hearing and admitted both CSLI and GAR evidence.
- Defense moved to suppress CSLI on Fourth Amendment and statutory (Minn. Stat. § 626A.42) grounds and objected to GAR evidence as novel/scientifically unreliable; Batson objection was raised after the State peremptorily struck an African-American venire member (Juror 18).
- The district court denied suppression, overruled the Batson challenge (finding no prima facie showing), admitted the CSLI and GAR evidence, and Harvey was convicted and sentenced; on appeal the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Harvey's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of CSLI under Minn. Stat. § 626A.42 | CSLI was obtained without a tracking warrant under § 626A.42 so evidence must be excluded | Although the order cited § 626A.28, the application and order met § 626A.42's substantive probable-cause requirements | Court held the application/order satisfied § 626A.42's substantive probable-cause requirements; no statutory exclusion error |
| CSLI and Fourth Amendment (Carpenter) | Government needed a warrant supported by probable cause to obtain CSLI per Carpenter; suppression required | Order here contained a probable-cause finding by a neutral magistrate, satisfying Carpenter's warrant-and-probable-cause requirement | Court held Fourth Amendment satisfied because the order included a probable-cause determination, so no constitutional violation |
| Expert testimony: CSLI and GAR drive-test under Minn. R. Evid. 702/Frye-Mack | GAR drive-test and/or CSLI testimony were novel and not generally accepted/foundationally reliable | CSLI is long-used and not novel; expert testimony established foundational reliability; GAR drive-test either generally accepted or, if not, its admission was harmless | CSLI: not novel and foundationally reliable — admissible. GAR: even if novel or not generally accepted, any error was harmless given cumulative CSLI evidence |
| Batson challenge to peremptory strike of Juror 18 | Circumstances (Juror 18’s experiences and race) raised inference of discrimination; district court misapplied Batson steps | Defense failed to make a prima facie showing; prosecutor provided race-neutral reasons; court properly found no prima facie case | Court gave deference to district court and held Harvey failed to establish a prima facie Batson showing; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (U.S. 2018) (CSLI implicates Fourth Amendment; government generally needs a warrant supported by probable cause)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (three-step test for race-based peremptory strikes)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable-cause review uses the ‘totality of the circumstances’ and issuing judge need a substantial basis)
- State v. Pendleton, 725 N.W.2d 717 (Minn. 2007) (Batson procedure and review; district-court must follow proper stepwise analysis)