United States v. Caraballo
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112739
| D. Vt. | 2013Background
- On July 29, 2011, police investigating the execution-style homicide of Melissa Barratt suspected Frank Caraballo as a primary suspect and believed he was armed and dangerous.
- Barratt had previously told police she feared Caraballo and that he had access to weapons; law enforcement also had recent controlled buys linking Caraballo to two cell numbers.
- Investigators, fearing imminent risk to informants, officers, and dissipation of forensic evidence, decided not to wait for a warrant and requested Sprint Nextel to provide real-time location (“ping”) data for two Caraballo numbers under Sprint’s exigent‑circumstances procedure.
- Sprint Nextel complied; one phone’s pings located Caraballo’s movement from Brattleboro north on I‑91 and ultimately to Springfield, VT; surveillance then led to a traffic stop and arrest on drug charges and recovery of evidence (including the pinged phone).
- Caraballo moved to suppress evidence and post‑arrest statements, arguing the warrantless real‑time pinging violated the Fourth Amendment; the government defended under several theories including no Fourth Amendment search, exigent circumstances, and good‑faith reliance on law and provider policies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Caraballo) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether real‑time cell‑phone pinging was a Fourth Amendment "search" | Pinging was a warrantless search of location data and thus violated the Fourth Amendment | No search occurred because location was exposed on public roads and was voluntarily conveyed to carrier; alternatively, exigent circumstances, good faith, automobile exception, inevitable discovery | Court held, under the facts, no Fourth Amendment search occurred; denied suppression |
| If a search, whether warrantless pinging was nevertheless reasonable | N/A (primary contention: search + invalid warrantless intrusion) | Even if a search, exigent circumstances and objectively reasonable good‑faith reliance on 18 U.S.C. § 2702(c)(4) justified warrantless disclosure and bar suppression | Court held that even if a search occurred, exigent circumstances and good‑faith reliance would make the warrantless ping reasonable; suppression not warranted |
| Applicability of the third‑party/voluntary‑disclosure doctrine to real‑time location data | Real‑time pinging is non‑routine, surreptitious and not voluntarily conveyed in ordinary course; thus expectation of privacy exists | Users voluntarily disclose location to carriers; carriers’ privacy policies and statutory emergency exception put users on notice; doctrine applies | Court found that in exigent circumstances defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy; also emphasized statutory/emergency framework and carrier notice |
| Whether provider (Sprint) acted as government agent when producing location | Sprint’s compliance at government request makes it an instrument of government, implicating Fourth Amendment | Government did not dispute agency; argued compliance fell within statutory emergency exception and provider acted in good faith | Court treated provider production as governmental disclosure but found production consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 2702(c)(4) and Sprint’s good‑faith policies; no suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (recognizes trespass and invites Katz analysis for non‑trespassory electronic surveillance)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (establishes reasonable expectation of privacy test)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (third‑party doctrine: information voluntarily conveyed to phone company carries reduced privacy expectation)
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (third‑party disclosure of financial records)
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (beeper tracking on public roads not a search)
- United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (beeper monitoring revealing presence inside a home can be a search)
- United States v. Skinner, 690 F.3d 772 (6th Cir.; real‑time cell‑phone GPS pinging of prepaid phone held not a Fourth Amendment search)
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (good‑faith reliance on statute can bar exclusion)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good‑faith warrant reliance exception to exclusionary rule)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (use of technology not in general public use to explore details of the home is a search)
- Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45 (Fourth Amendment standard is reasonableness)