United States v. Antonio Gilton
917 F.3d 1068
9th Cir.2019Background
- June 4, 2012: Calvin Sneed was shot and killed in San Francisco; his girlfriend L.G. was present and provided investigators with phone numbers from her phone, including a number for Antonio Gilton (her cousin, referred to as "elder brother").
- Investigators received confidential tips implicating L.G.’s father (Barry Gilton) and another unidentified person; exigent CSLI for Barry suggested movement consistent with involvement.
- SFPD Sergeant Watts submitted a 14‑page affidavit and obtained a state warrant (June 6, 2012) seeking subscriber data, call/text records, and historical cell‑site location information (CSLI) for two numbers, including Gilton’s.
- The affidavit mentioned Gilton only briefly: L.G. lived with him in Los Angeles, his number was in her phone, and she identified it as his; it contained no facts placing Gilton in San Francisco at the time of the murder.
- Gilton was federally indicted; he moved to suppress the CSLI. The district court granted suppression, finding no probable cause and that reliance on the warrant was not in good faith.
- Ninth Circuit: held the warrant lacked probable cause for Gilton’s CSLI but reversed suppression under the Leon good‑faith exception, concluding reliance was not "entirely unreasonable." Judge McKeown dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gilton) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit supported probable cause to seize Gilton’s historical CSLI | Affidavit’s references to Gilton were too sparse and innocuous to infer he was in SF or that his CSLI would contain evidence; probable cause lacking | Totality of circumstances (family connection, confidential tips, surveillance, exigent CSLI for Barry, and prompt warrant) supported a fair probability that Gilton’s CSLI was relevant | Probable cause: NO — affidavit did not establish a fair probability that evidence would be found in Gilton’s CSLI |
| Whether suppression is barred by the good‑faith exception (Leon) | Good faith exception inapplicable because affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause that reliance was objectively unreasonable | Officers acted in objective good faith: warrant was issued quickly, affidavit was lengthy, police sought a warrant despite unsettled law about CSLI, and magistrate made an independent determination | Good faith exception: YES — reliance was not "entirely unreasonable," so suppression not warranted |
| Relevance of Carpenter (CSLI privacy and warrant requirement) | Carpenter confirms CSLI is protected and warrants must be supported by probable cause; that does not save an affidavit that fails probable cause | Carpenter shows officers were navigating unsettled law; seeking a warrant was a reasonable precaution and weighs for good faith | Carpenter: Court applied Carpenter to confirm CSLI needs a warrant but found Carpenter’s later holding does not make reliance on the 2012 warrant objectively unreasonable |
| Whether officers misled magistrate or magistrate abandoned neutral role | Affidavit did not misstate facts nor show judicial abdication; suppression argued only on lack of probable cause/good faith | Same — no suggestion of reckless falsehoods or magistrate misconduct | No evidence of false statements or judicial abandonment; those Leon exceptions do not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause assessed under totality of circumstances; fair probability standard)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule; exceptions where reliance is entirely unreasonable)
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (CSLI is protected by the Fourth Amendment; warrant required for historical CSLI)
- United States v. Grant, 682 F.3d 827 (9th Cir. 2012) (family association alone insufficient to establish probable cause; good‑faith exception inapplicable where connection is implausible)
- United States v. Krupa, 658 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2011) (magistrate’s finding entitled to deference but not a rubber stamp)
- United States v. Davis, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (good‑faith exception applies when officers relied on binding precedent later overruled)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (third‑party doctrine on information voluntarily conveyed; discussed in context of Carpenter)
- United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974) (exclusionary rule’s deterrent purpose and limits)