563 F.Supp.3d 361
M.D. Penn.2021Background
- On Dec. 17, 2017 police responded to a violent assault at 19 Bradford St.; witnesses identified two dealers nicknamed “Feddy” and “Bug” who carried guns and had fled the scene with narcotics and weapons.
- A witness (Kasperitis) identified an Uber driver, Darik Johnson, as transporting the suspects and linked Johnson to 280 New Hancock St.
- Wilkes‑Barre police requested warrantless ‘‘pings’’ of a Sprint phone number tied to “Feddy” (later shown to be Johnnie Baker); Sprint returned location points accurate to ~14 meters showing the phone near 280 New Hancock St.
- Using the ping data, officers obtained a search warrant for 280 New Hancock St., found Baker and Martinez on the third floor, seized narcotics and Baker’s phone, and later obtained a warrant to search the phone.
- Baker moved to suppress the ping and all evidence derived from it (Martinez joined but lacked standing); defendants also sought an evidentiary/Franks hearing challenging the affidavit supporting the house search warrant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Baker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge ping | Baker lacks proof phone belonged to him; Martinez lacks interest | Baker produced police documents linking the phone to him; Martinez has no privacy interest in Baker’s phone | Baker has standing to challenge; Martinez does not |
| Whether a warrantless real‑time ping is a Fourth Amendment search | Hammond controls: short‑term real‑time CSLI used to locate a person on public roads is not a search | Carpenter, Karo, Kyllo: real‑time location that reveals presence inside a home is a search | Ping here was a Fourth Amendment search because it located Baker in a private home |
| Whether an exception justified the warrantless ping (exigent circumstances / good faith) | Exigent circumstances existed (violent assault, armed suspects, potential danger and flight); SCA §2702(c)(4) / good‑faith reliance justified ping | No true exigency: >1 hour elapsed; police could have obtained a warrant | Court found exigent circumstances justified the ping; officers acted in good faith, so suppression was unwarranted |
| Request for evidentiary / Franks hearing on affidavit accuracy | Affidavit supplied probable cause and was not knowingly false or recklessly prepared | Affidavit contained material misstatements/omissions (address discrepancy, witness linkage) warranting a hearing | Denied: defendants failed to make the substantial preliminary showing required for a Franks hearing; no evidentiary hearing required |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (Sup. Ct.) (recognizes a reasonable expectation of privacy in historical CSLI; left real‑time CSLI unresolved)
- United States v. Hammond, 996 F.3d 374 (7th Cir.) (real‑time CSLI used briefly on public roads was not a Fourth Amendment search)
- Karo v. United States, 468 U.S. 705 (Sup. Ct.) (remote electronic detection of items inside a home can be a search)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (Sup. Ct.) (use of technology not in general public use to obtain details of the home is a search)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (Sup. Ct.) (long‑term GPS monitoring implicates significant privacy concerns)
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (Sup. Ct.) (tracking on public thoroughfares by electronic means may not implicate Fourth Amendment privacy)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (Sup. Ct.) (pen‑register/third‑party doctrine limits expectation of privacy in numbers dialed)
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (Sup. Ct.) (bank records held by third parties are not protected by Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (Sup. Ct.) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)