United States v. Coles
264 F. Supp. 3d 667
M.D. Penn.2017Background
- Franklin County investigators used a Pennsylvania tracking order to monitor CSLI for a phone believed to belong to Kevin Coles during a triple-homicide probe; tracking placed Coles at a Days Inn in Hagerstown, MD on July 7, 2016.
- Maryland officers, aware of an active New York bench warrant for Coles, observed him exit the hotel with a large white bag, enter a Chevy Equinox, and then arrested him after surrounding the vehicle; officers recovered multiple cell phones and other items.
- Police obtained and executed a search warrant for the Equinox and separately interviewed and obtained a consent search from Courtney Smith for her Chambersburg apartment (142 Lincoln Way West); a subsequent magistrate-issued warrant led to a July 22, 2016 search of that apartment where drugs and items linked to the homicide investigation were seized.
- Coles invoked his Miranda right to counsel during a July 7, 2016 interview; he was re-interviewed on August 11, 2016 for over three hours and made statements after being re‑advised of Miranda rights.
- Coles moved to suppress (1) evidence from his July 7, 2016 detention/arrest and related searches, (2) statements from the July 7 and August 11 interviews, and (3) evidence from the July 22 apartment search. The court held suppression hearings and issued this memorandum and order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Coles) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of CSLI tracking order | Tracking was issued under state statute and produced relevant information; third‑circuit precedent permits CSLI without probable‑cause warrant | Warrantless CSLI collection violated Fourth Amendment; asks court to reject Stimler | Denied suppression; followed Stimler/In re Application; even if Carpenter changed law, PA tracking order contained state probable‑cause finding sufficient |
| Validity of July 7 arrest | Arrest supported by a valid NY bench warrant (confirmed via dispatch) and photo/CSLI identification | Arrest lacked particularized probable cause; NCIC did not establish extradition; officers lacked the warrant on scene | Denied suppression; court found valid warrant, extradition confirmed by dispatch, and particularized identification adequate |
| Vehicle search warrant / Franks challenge | Affidavit (even corrected) provided probable cause independently of mistaken description of underlying NY charge | Affidavit knowingly or recklessly misstated that warrant involved attempted homicide (it was for arson), so warrant tainted under Franks | Denied suppression; misstatement not shown to be made knowingly or recklessly and was immaterial to probable cause because other facts supported the warrant |
| Standing & probable cause for July 22 apartment warrant | Warrant affidavit disclosed Smith’s incarceration and detailed her statements tying Coles and suspected trafficking to the apartment; ongoing drug activity made information timely | Coles lacked expectation of privacy; alternatively, if he had standing, Smith’s statements were stale, unreliable, and motivated by incarceration | Denied suppression; court found Coles lacked reasonable expectation of privacy as a transient worker/guest, and in any event affidavit gave magistrate a substantial basis to find probable cause for ongoing drug activity |
| Admissibility of Aug 11 statements (Miranda/Edwards/Shatzer) | Officers re‑Mirandized Coles; 35 days elapsed between interviews, so Shatzer 14‑day break argument applies and waiver was voluntary | Coles had invoked counsel on July 7; Edwards bars re‑interrogation absent counsel; Shatzer’s 14‑day rule inapplicable to pretrial detainees | Granted suppression for Aug 11 statements; court held Shatzer’s 14‑day break exception does not apply to pretrial detainees and Edwards’ prophylaxis remained effective, so the later waiver was involuntary |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stimler, 864 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2017) (CSLI collection under SCA does not implicate a reasonable expectation of privacy)
- In re Application of the United States, 620 F.3d 304 (3d Cir. 2010) (same principle regarding CSLI and third‑party records)
- United States v. Carpenter, 819 F.3d 880 (6th Cir. 2016) (addresses CSLI constitutional issues; cert. granted by Supreme Court)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (procedure for challenging knowingly false statements in warrant affidavits)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (suspect’s invocation of counsel requires cessation of interrogation until counsel is present)
- Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (2010) (Edwards presumption ends after 14‑day break in custody for sentenced prisoners)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause for warrants evaluated under the ‘totality of the circumstances’)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (search incident to arrest principles governing vehicle searches)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (standing requires a legitimate expectation of privacy)