United States v. Aaron Graham
796 F.3d 332
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- Graham and Jordan were convicted after a joint federal trial for multiple Hobbs Act robberies, related conspiracies, and firearm offenses arising from a series of robberies in Baltimore (Jan–Feb 2011). Police recovered a firearm, cash, clothing, and two cell phones from the vehicle and searches of residences.
- The government obtained 221 days of historical cell-site location information (CSLI) from Sprint/Nextel via two court orders under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) (Stored Communications Act). CSLI was used at trial to place defendants near robberies and each other.
- Defendants moved to suppress the CSLI as a warrantless Fourth Amendment search; the district court denied suppression but admitted the records and related witness testimony.
- On appeal the Fourth Circuit held the government’s procurement of long-term historical CSLI without a probable-cause warrant was a Fourth Amendment search and thus unconstitutional, but nevertheless affirmed because the government reasonably relied in good faith on § 2703(d) orders.
- The court rejected application of the third-party doctrine (Smith/Miller) to CSLI, reasoning CSLI is automatically generated by providers and not voluntarily conveyed by users; but it applied the good-faith exception to preserve admission of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether obtaining historical CSLI without a probable-cause warrant is a Fourth Amendment search | Graham/Jordan: long-term CSLI reveals detailed movements and private activities; obtaining it without a warrant is an unreasonable search | Govt: CSLI is third-party business routing data; users voluntarily convey it to providers so no warrant required under Smith/Miller; alternatively §2703(d) order sufficient | The acquisition of long-term historical CSLI is a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant; users have a reasonable expectation of privacy in long-term CSLI |
| Whether the third-party doctrine (Smith/Miller) bars privacy protection for CSLI | Graham/Jordan: CSLI is generated automatically by providers (not voluntarily conveyed) and can reveal private movements; third-party doctrine inapplicable | Govt: users know calls route through towers and thus assume risk; CSLI is provider business record | Third-party doctrine does not apply to historical CSLI because users do not voluntarily convey location-identifying cell-site data to providers |
| Whether the SCA §2703(d) orders and officers’ reliance on them justify admission (good-faith exception) | Graham/Jordan: even if SCA authorizes orders, reliance on §2703(d) cannot excuse an unconstitutional practice | Govt: relied on statute and magistrate-issued §2703(d) orders in good faith; absence of Circuit precedent made reliance reasonable | Good-faith exception applies; admission of CSLI was sustained despite constitutional violation because the government reasonably relied on §2703(d) orders |
| Admissibility of testimony about CSLI and cellular networks (lay vs expert) | Defendants: certain Sprint and FBI testimony constituted expert opinion and required Daubert/Kumho gatekeeping | Govt: witnesses were records custodians/agents offering factual, non-specialized explanations and demonstrative maps | Court: admitted testimony; portions that crossed into specialized technical explanation were harmless error if any |
| Whether district court’s restrictions on Jordan’s testimony and denial of severance violated his right to testify/get fair trial | Jordan: restrictions prevented exculpatory testimony that would implicate Graham; severance necessary | Govt: restrictions were tailored to avoid unfair prejudice and did not prevent a full narrative; joint trial appropriate under Rule 8/14 | No reversible constitutional error; restrictions and denial of severance were within discretion (plain-error not shown) |
| Hearsay: admissibility of out-of-court statements attributed to Graham (written statement and jail call) | Jordan: the statement and the call should be admitted under Rule 804(b)(3) (statements against interest) | Govt: the written note was not genuinely against Graham’s penal interest and lacked adequate corroboration; jail call did not authenticate the document | District court did not abuse discretion excluding the statements; corroboration and trustworthiness requirements not met |
| Validity of search warrants and admissibility of evidence seized from Jordan’s residence | Jordan: warrant affidavit omitted exculpatory facts and return falsely certified execution | Govt: affidavit provided probable cause; local officers executed warrants; Rule 41 defects (if any) not prejudicial | No reversible error: no Franks showing; Rule 41 arguments fail because warrants were executed by local officers and no prejudice shown |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy, Hobbs Act robbery, and §924(c) brandishing convictions | Jordan: evidence insufficient; he lacked requisite knowledge/participation | Govt: CSLI, video identifications, seized weapons/clothing, cash, test-drives, and witness ID support conspiracy and Pinkerton liability | Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to govt, convictions were supported; conspiracy and accomplice liability sustain robbery/§924(c) convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (Fourth Amendment protects reasonable expectations of privacy)
- United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) (use of tracking beeper inside a home constituted a search)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (use of technology not in general public use to explore home details is a search)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (installing GPS on vehicle and long-term monitoring implicated Fourth Amendment; concurrences emphasized privacy risks of prolonged tracking)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (third-party doctrine: no reasonable expectation of privacy in numbers dialed and exposed to phone company)
- Miller v. United States, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) (no expectation of privacy in bank records voluntarily conveyed to the bank)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule for reliance on magistrate-issued warrants)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (smartphone data raises heightened privacy concerns; historic location information identified as sensitive)