United States v. Cox, 465 F.Supp.3d 854

Background

In 2018 FBI traced online extortion/child-pornography activity to records linked to Defendant Bradley M. Cox; Cox admitted using multiple Facebook accounts to solicit/extort sexual material.
Government obtained non-content Records from Facebook via an SCA § 2703(d) subpoena: registration, billing, session times/durations, IP addresses, and cookies (no account content).
Cox moved to suppress the Records, arguing Carpenter v. United States requires a warrant for such third‑party records because they reveal location and intimate details.
The Government relied on the traditional third‑party doctrine and post‑Carpenter cases distinguishing CSLI from IP/log data, arguing the Records were voluntarily disclosed and not equivalent to CSLI.
The Court found Cox presented no admissible evidence or expert proof about the Records’ contents or how they were used; Cox’s assertions were largely speculative.
The Court denied suppression: (1) concluded Carpenter did not control because Facebook logs are volitional and less precise than CSLI, and (2) alternatively held the Government acted in good faith reliance on binding precedent.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Government)	Defendant's Argument (Cox)	Held
Whether Facebook registration/billing/IP/cookie Records obtained via an SCA §2703(d) subpoena are protected by the Fourth Amendment under Carpenter	The Records fall within the third‑party doctrine; IP/logs are generated volitionally (user action) and are not equivalent to CSLI, so no warrant was required	Carpenter’s exception to the third‑party doctrine applies; Facebook Records can reveal precise location and intimate details, so a warrant was required	Denied. Court held Carpenter did not extend to these Records: they were voluntarily disclosed and not materially like CSLI; third‑party doctrine applies
Whether suppression is required under the exclusionary rule (good‑faith exception)	Even if a Fourth Amendment violation occurred, agents reasonably relied on SCA and binding/persuasive precedent, so exclusion is not warranted	Carpenter and its remand should have put the Government on notice that a warrant was required under the SCA	Denied. Court found objective good faith reliance on then‑binding precedent; exclusionary rule inapplicable
Whether Cox carried his burden to show a reasonable expectation of privacy in the Records	—	The Records reveal exact/chronological location and intimate details; cookies can link third‑party activity; thus Cox had a privacy interest	Denied. Cox produced no admissible evidence or expert proof about the Records or how they were used; claims were speculative, so he failed to meet his burden

Key Cases Cited

Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (warrant required for historical cell‑site location information)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (reasonable expectation of privacy / warrant rule)
Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (third‑party doctrine; pen‑register data)
United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971) (no warrant for recordings passed to third parties)
United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) (no privacy interest in bank records held by bank)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (good‑faith reliance on statute can preclude exclusion)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (reliance on binding precedent bars exclusion)
United States v. Hood, 920 F.3d 97 (1st Cir. 2019) (IP address logs are volitional and differ from CSLI)
United States v. Caira, 833 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2016) (government obtained only login IPs, which do not show location when not logged in)
United States v. Contreras, 905 F.3d 853 (5th Cir. 2018) (business records that incidentally reveal location remain within third‑party doctrine)