State v. Taylor
2014 Ohio 2550
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Darren D. Taylor participated in an attempted pawn-shop robbery during which he fatally shot a clerk; an accomplice was also killed.
- A witness followed the fleeing van and reported its Michigan plate; police linked the van to Taylor and located phone numbers for Taylor and his brother through carrier records.
- Police requested and received “ping” (cell-site/GPS) data from Sprint under the carrier’s exigent‑circumstances form; the data traced a phone from Detroit to the pawn shop and back, with pings near accomplices and the location where a body was found.
- Taylor was located at a Michigan parole office, detained, and briefly allowed police to search two phones; later police obtained an administrative subpoena for additional phone records.
- Taylor moved to suppress evidence derived from the warrantless tracking of the cell‑phone pings, arguing a Fourth Amendment search required a warrant; the trial court denied suppression and Taylor was convicted of two counts of murder with firearm specifications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrant was required to obtain cell‑phone ping/GPS data | State: No warrant required because pings were business records shared with the carrier; no reasonable expectation of privacy | Taylor: Tracking pings is a Fourth Amendment search (Jones) and he had a privacy interest—phone was given to him by brother | Court: No warrant required; Taylor had no reasonable expectation of privacy in pings emitted to the carrier |
| Whether exigent circumstances justified carrier disclosure | State: Carrier’s exigent form and emergency investigation justified immediate production | Taylor: No exigency shown to bypass warrant requirement | Court: Did not reach exigency as dispositive—found no privacy interest so warrant unnecessary |
| Standing to challenge pings from brother’s phone | State: Taylor lacked standing to challenge records for phone registered to brother | Taylor: He was using the brother’s phone and it was on his person | Court: Trial court found no standing for Taylor to challenge brother’s phone records (court did not rest exclusively on this point) |
| Applicability of Jones (GPS‑tracking precedents) | State: Jones distinguishable because it involved physical trespass (vehicle GPS device); pings are third‑party records | Taylor: Jones supports that prolonged location tracking is a search | Court: Jones is distinguishable; no physical trespass and info was voluntarily disclosed to third party carrier |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Skinner, 690 F.3d 772 (6th Cir. 2012) (cell‑phone ping/GPS data disclosed to carrier does not implicate reasonable expectation of privacy)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (placing a GPS device on a vehicle and using it to monitor movements is a Fourth Amendment search; emphasized trespassory test)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in numbers dialed from a phone because information is voluntarily conveyed to phone company)
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (use of tracking beeper to follow movements on public roads did not violate Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) (no Fourth Amendment protection for financial records held by third parties)
- California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in curtilage observed from public airspace)