24 F.4th 965
4th Cir.2022Background:
- On Feb. 3, 2018 Hobbs allegedly broke into his ex-girlfriend Foreman’s home, brandished a handgun, took a TV, and threatened to kill Foreman, her seven‑year‑old daughter, other family members, and responding officers.
- Foreman provided identifying information (aliases, phone number, vehicle, social media) and reported Hobbs’ access to firearms; detectives verified Hobbs’ violent criminal history (robbery, attempted murder).
- Detective Nesbitt submitted an “exigent form” to T‑Mobile around midnight seeking real‑time cell‑site “pings” and call logs; T‑Mobile provided pings every 15 minutes (3,000–5,000 meter accuracy) and call logs were used to narrow location.
- Officers located and attempted to stop Hobbs about six hours later; Hobbs fled, crashed, was arrested, and a loaded handgun was recovered near his vehicle; warrants for the car and phone were later obtained.
- Hobbs moved to suppress the firearm evidence, arguing the warrantless acquisition of pings/call logs was not justified by exigent circumstances; the district court denied suppression and Hobbs was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
- On appeal Hobbs also argued post‑Rehaif that the indictment and jury instructions failed to require proof he knew his felon status; the Fourth Circuit addressed both the exigency and Rehaif claims.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exigent circumstances justified warrantless acquisition of real‑time cell "pings" and call logs | Hobbs: no evidence he would flee or that there was imminent danger; calls for pings could wait for a warrant | Govt: Foreman’s credible report that Hobbs was armed, threatened imminent killing of civilians and officers, violent history, T‑Mobile slow to comply with warrants, risk to public justified exigent request | Yes. Court affirmed that officers reasonably believed Hobbs was armed and an imminent threat, and that exigency and T‑Mobile’s delay justified the exigent request |
| Whether use of call logs with pings exceeded the exigency justification | Hobbs: combining logs with pings increased privacy intrusion and exceeded the emergency need | Govt: call logs were narrowly used to triangulate and timely locate an armed suspect; intrusion was limited and temporally circumscribed | Yes. Court upheld use of call logs to narrow pings and locate Hobbs quickly |
| Whether standard practice of using an "exigent form" (vs. seeking a warrant) invalidates exigent claim | Hobbs: routine bypassing of warrants undermines claim of emergency | Govt: practice aside, specific facts here (threats, violent history, T‑Mobile delays) established true exigency | No. Court warned routine practice alone is insufficient, but found facts here satisfied exigency |
| Whether failure to allege/instruct that Hobbs knew his felon status (Rehaif) requires vacatur | Hobbs: indictment and jury instruction omitted mens rea required by Rehaif | Govt: plain‑error standard; Hobbs had multiple serious felony convictions and admitted he knew he could not possess firearms | No relief. Court found plain‑error test not met—prior convictions and testimony make it unlikely result would differ |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (historical CSLI implicates privacy and generally requires a warrant)
- United States v. Caraballo, 831 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2016) (exigent circumstances justified warrantless real‑time pings where suspect was violent and posed imminent threat)
- United States v. Curry, 965 F.3d 313 (4th Cir. 2020) (discussion of exigent‑circumstances exception and its narrow scope)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (exigent‑circumstances framework—need for official action and no time for a warrant)
- Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S. Ct. 2525 (2019) (recognizing exigent‑circumstances exception where compelling need and no time for a warrant)
- Lange v. California, 141 S. Ct. 2011 (2021) (exigency recognized for pursuit of fleeing suspects)
- Greer v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090 (2021) (Rehaif plain‑error framework and evidence bearing on knowledge of felon status)
- United States v. Yengel, 711 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2013) (exigent circumstances where immediate and credible threat exists)
- United States v. Banks, 884 F.3d 998 (10th Cir. 2018) (exigent circumstances justified pings where defendant threatened to shoot an informant)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (noting exigent‑circumstances exception for warrantless searches)