United States v. Gilliam
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21448
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- In late 2011 Jabar Gilliam met Jasmin (a minor) and allegedly coerced her into prostitution, bringing her from Maryland to New York. She was reported missing on November 30, 2011.
- Maryland State Police investigator Corporal Chris Heid, informed by Jasmin’s foster mother, social worker, and biological mother, believed Gilliam posed a danger to Jasmin and requested real‑time GPS location data for Gilliam’s Sprint cell phone.
- Sprint provided real‑time GPS location information under 18 U.S.C. § 2702(c)(4) (emergency disclosure), which was shared with FBI and NYPD.
- NYPD located Gilliam and Jasmin shortly thereafter using the location data; Gilliam fled when confronted and was arrested after a scuffle.
- A federal grand jury charged Gilliam with sex trafficking of a minor and interstate transportation of a minor for prostitution; he was convicted and sentenced to 240 months.
- Gilliam appealed, arguing the warrantless acquisition and use of GPS cell‑phone location data violated the Stored Communications Act and the Fourth Amendment; the Second Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "other information" under 18 U.S.C. § 2702(c)(4) includes cell‑phone location | Gilliam: Sprint’s disclosure of GPS data exceeded what §2702(c)(4) permits | Government/Sprint: "Other information" covers subscriber‑use data, including location | Held: §2702(c)(4) encompasses cell‑phone location data |
| Whether the facts presented an "emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury" under §2702(c)(4) | Gilliam: A warrant could have been obtained without materially increasing risk; no sufficient emergency | Heid/Government: Credible reports that a minor was being prostituted created a realistic, imminent risk warranting emergency disclosure | Held: Circumstances met §2702(c)(4)'s emergency standard; Sprint acted in good faith |
| Whether warrantless use of prospective GPS location info violated the Fourth Amendment | Gilliam: Tracking and arrest based on location data required a warrant | Government: Exigent circumstances justified warrantless tracking to protect a minor | Held: Exigent circumstances justified warrantless acquisition/use of GPS location; no Fourth Amendment error |
| Validity of arrest and conviction on other grounds | Gilliam: Raised challenges to probable cause, jury charge, sufficiency of evidence | Government: Arrest supported by on‑scene events and trafficking evidence; trial proper | Held: Arrest supported by probable cause; jury charge and evidence were proper; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (discussing privacy interests in cell phones and warrant requirements)
- United States v. Daye, 571 F.3d 225 (2d Cir. 2009) (recognizing serious physical‑injury risks from child prostitution)
- United States v. Curtis, 481 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (child exploitation poses significant risk of harm)
- United States v. Carter, 266 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2001) (prostitution of a child involves risk of assault and disease)
- Van Emrik v. Chemung County Dep’t of Social Services, 911 F.2d 863 (2d Cir. 1990) (discussing exigent decisionmaking to protect children)
- United States v. Klump, 536 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard for reasonable officer determining exigency)
- United States v. MacDonald, 916 F.2d 766 (2d Cir. 1990) (fact‑specific review of exigent‑circumstances findings)
- United States v. Caraballo, 963 F. Supp. 2d 341 (D. Vt. 2013) (treating emergency disclosure authority as balancing privacy against preventing imminent harm)