872 S.E.2d 638
S.C.2022Background
- On April 30, 2015, Justin Warner entered a BP in Anderson County, showed his ID, then shot cashier Mradulaben Patel during an attempted robbery; Patel later died. Security cameras recorded the incident and a vehicle at the scene.
- An anonymous CrimeStoppers tip led investigators to Warner after his date of birth matched the register entry; the detective sent the crime-scene video to Warner’s Georgia probation officer, Nathan Goolsby, who identified Warner in the video.
- An Anderson County magistrate issued a warrant to T‑Mobile on May 4, 2015, seeking subscriber/tower location records (CSLI) for Warner’s number; the warrant indicated records were located in New Jersey and was served on T‑Mobile’s Law Enforcement Relations Group there, which produced records.
- An FBI expert interpreted the CSLI to place Warner near the BP around the time of the offense; Warner moved to suppress the CSLI. The trial court ruled the warrant was invalid because records were stored out of state but denied suppression based on prevailing law at the time (relying on Graham).
- Warner also sought a Biggers hearing, arguing Goolsby’s out‑of‑court ID was suggestive; the trial court refused, reasoning Goolsby was not an eyewitness. Warner was convicted; the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on the CSLI suppression and the Biggers issue.
- The Court held Biggers did not apply because Goolsby was not an eyewitness, found the warrant was not invalid merely because records were stored in another state, but remanded for development of the record on whether the affidavit established probable cause and whether suppression is warranted post‑Carpenter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of warrant and suppression of CSLI stored/produced out of state | Warner: Magistrate lacked authority to issue warrant for records stored in NJ; affidavit was conclusory and lacked probable cause; CSLI should be suppressed under Carpenter. | State: T‑Mobile does business in Anderson County and controls the records; warrant valid despite out‑of‑state storage; at the time officers reasonably relied on Graham, so exclusionary rule shouldn't apply. | Court: Warrant not invalid solely because records were stored in another state; T‑Mobile is subject to local jurisdiction. Remanded to develop record on whether affidavit supplied probable cause and whether suppression/exclusionary rule applies. |
| Need for a Biggers hearing for Goolsby's identification from the video | Warner: Goolsby’s identification was the product of a suggestive procedure and required a Biggers reliability hearing. | State: Goolsby was not an eyewitness to the crime; Biggers addresses eyewitness IDs and does not extend to non‑eyewitness identifications. | Court: Biggers applies to eyewitness identifications only; no hearing required because Goolsby was not an eyewitness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (CSLI subject to Fourth Amendment warrant requirement)
- United States v. Graham, 824 F.3d 421 (4th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (held no reasonable expectation of privacy in CSLI pre‑Carpenter)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (digital content on cell phones entitled to Fourth Amendment protection)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (exclusionary rule inapplicable when officers reasonably rely on binding precedent)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949) (probable cause is more than bare suspicion; factual basis required)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (affidavit must provide a substantial basis for probable cause)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (framework for determining reliability of eyewitness identifications)
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) (third‑party doctrine regarding expectations of privacy in records)