State v. Louis Sinapi, 295 A.3d 787

Background

On December 30, 2014 John Fiore was found murdered; his 2009 Chevy Impala and two firearms were missing. Detectives identified Louis Sinapi as a suspect based on prior interactions and threats.
Detectives encountered a man who gave a false name and left the probation office; they obtained Sinapi’s cell number and, without a warrant, asked Sprint for real-time CSLI (multiple pings) to locate him.
Real-time pings led officers to an address where the occupant consented to a search; officers found items (phone, gloves, hat, bag) and later obtained a warrant to seize them. Sinapi was subsequently arrested hiding nearby; DNA linked him to Fiore’s car and a red sweatshirt found inside.
Sinapi was tried jointly on an indictment (murder, larceny, drug counts) and a probation-violation hearing; the jury convicted him of felony larceny but acquitted on murder and drug counts; the trial justice found a probation violation and imposed consecutive sentences.
On appeal Sinapi challenged: (1) denial of suppression of evidence from warrantless access to real-time CSLI; (2) admission of UPS driver DiSano’s identification under Rule 403; (3) admission of sister Cataldi’s testimony about Fiore never lending his car under Rule 406 (habit); and (4) the determination that he violated probation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Warrantless acquisition of real-time CSLI	State relied on exigent-circumstances/hot-pursuit to justify pinging phone without warrant	Sinapi argued obtaining real-time CSLI is a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant and exigency did not apply	Court held real-time CSLI is a Fourth Amendment search (and under state constitution) requiring a warrant, but exigent circumstances (hot pursuit given lie/flight and murder suspect facts) justified warrantless pings; denial of suppression affirmed and any error was harmless as to larceny conviction
Admission of DiSano identification (Rule 403)	Identification was probative because it placed defendant near where the car was found	Sinapi argued identification was unreliable, potentially misleading, and new empirical materials should exclude it	Court found the preservation of the novel empirical argument inadequate; admission was not an abuse of discretion and was harmless in view of abundant other evidence
Cataldi testimony that Fiore never let others drive his car (Rule 406 habit)	State offered habit evidence to show Fiore would not have lent his car	Sinapi argued Cataldi lacked sufficient contact to establish habit and testimony was not semiautomatic conduct	Court held Cataldi’s lifelong knowledge supplied adequate sampling/uniformity to admit habit evidence; no abuse of discretion and any error was harmless
Probation-violation adjudication	Sinapi argued being adjudicated a violator duplicated punishment based on same conduct and lacked adequate notice	State argued defendant waived objections and judicial estoppel barred post-trial challenge	Court concluded Sinapi waived challenge to judicial estoppel, upheld violation finding (trial justice relied on multiple independent grounds) and affirmed sentence

Key Cases Cited

Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (U.S. 2018) (recognized privacy interest in cell-site location records and limited holding to historical CSLI)
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (U.S. 2012) (GPS tracking of vehicle over time can be a Fourth Amendment search)
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (U.S. 2014) (search of cell-phone contents generally requires a warrant)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (Fourth Amendment protects people, not places; test for reasonable expectation of privacy)
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1978) (warrantless searches are per se unreasonable salvo subject to established exceptions)
United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (U.S. 1983) (beeper monitoring on public roads did not invade legitimate expectation of privacy)
United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (U.S. 1984) (monitoring beeper inside a private residence can violate Fourth Amendment)
State v. Terzian, 162 A.3d 1230 (R.I. 2017) (standard of review for suppression denials)
State v. Barkmeyer, 949 A.2d 984 (R.I. 2008) (inevitable discovery and suppression principles)
State v. Gonsalves, 553 A.2d 1073 (R.I. 1989) (exigent-circumstances/hot pursuit requires objective, reasonable belief)
Gonzalez v. Oregon (State v. Gonzalez), 136 A.3d 1131 (R.I. 2016) (discussion of exigency and warrant exceptions)
Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (U.S. 2012) (reliability of eyewitness ID ordinarily for jury absent suggestive police conduct)