United States v. Ellis, 270 F. Supp. 3d 1134

Background

On January 21–22, 2013 OPD and the FBI deployed cell‑site simulators ("Stingrays") to locate Purvis Lamar Ellis’s cell phone after shootings; two Stingrays were used and Apartment 212 was later searched and firearms seized.
No search warrant specifically authorizing Stingray use was obtained before deployment; law enforcement relied on an exigent emergency pen‑register/trap‑and‑trace order and later obtained a state court pen‑register/SCA order within 48 hours.
Ellis moved to suppress: (1) evidence obtained or derived from Stingray use (arguing Fourth Amendment and Title III violations and seeking a Franks hearing); and (2) evidence seized from Apt. 212 (arguing lack of original warrant and prejudicial delay).
The court found that the use of a Stingray to obtain real‑time cell‑phone location is a Fourth Amendment search (reasonable expectation of privacy in real‑time location), but evaluated multiple exceptions and doctrines.
The court denied suppression: it held exigent‑circumstances justified the warrantless Stingray deployment, and alternatively found good‑faith reliance on the pen‑register procedures and inevitable discovery; it also denied suppression of Apt. 212 evidence despite the missing original filed warrant and delay.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether use of a Stingray to locate Ellis’s phone is a Fourth Amendment search	Ellis: Stingray intruded on protected areas and invaded privacy in real‑time location and movements, so a warrant was required	Government initially: Stingray use falls within pen‑register/ SCA authority (not a warrant search); also argued standing limits	Court: Stingray use is a Fourth Amendment search (reasonable expectation in real‑time location) but suppression denied on other grounds
Whether pen‑register/SCA authorization sufficed to use a Stingray without a warrant	Ellis: Pen‑register/SCA do not authorize direct government location surveillance via CSS; probable cause warrant required	Government: emergency pen‑register procedures and SCA orders authorized real‑time location collection; devices were configured as pen registers	Court: Pen‑register/SCA do not authorize CSS location surveillance in general; but here exigency + other exceptions made deployment reasonable
Whether exigent circumstances justified warrantless Stingray deployment	Ellis: No exigency—police had surrounded the building and obtained warrants, so could have waited	Government: Immediate danger, risk of flight, suspects armed and at large; SWAT perimeter and unfolding violent incidents created exigency	Court: Exigent circumstances justified the initial warrantless searches to locate Ellis; FBI’s later use was a continuation
Whether evidence from Apt. 212 must be suppressed for lack of original warrant or prejudicial delay	Ellis: Original file‑stamped warrant missing; lengthy delay prejudiced defendants and warrants may be invalid	Government: Probative record, redacted affidavits and contemporaneous warrants support validity; delay was ministerial and not prejudicial	Court: Denied suppression—search was pursuant to a valid warrant and delay or missing original did not require suppression

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (search via GPS device implicated Fourth Amendment trespass and tracking concerns)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (established reasonable expectation of privacy test)
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (Fourth Amendment rights are personal; standing limits)
Karo v. United States, 468 U.S. 705 (monitoring beeper inside a home is a search)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (use of sense‑enhancing technology to learn interior details of home is a search)
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (cell phones hold highly private data; generally warrants required for searches of phone contents)
Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (pen register doctrine and third‑party risk)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (limits on applying exclusionary rule when officers act in objectively reasonable reliance)
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (inevitable discovery doctrine)