United States v. Gloria Taylor, 54 F.4th 795

July 2013: DEA intercepted three crates containing large quantities of marijuana; investigation identified Gloria Taylor through rental-car surveillance and flight records.
The DEA served administrative subpoenas on Sprint seeking subscriber and call-connection records for the target number; Sprint produced call-detail records that included "repoll" numbers (cell-switch identifiers).
In March–May 2014 magistrate judges issued §2703(d) orders for historical CSLI and the government obtained a GPS tracking warrant; GPS and CSLI data helped place Taylor in Arizona on dates relevant to shipments.
On September 30, 2014, agents used the GPS data to locate Taylor, performed a dog sniff on a crate, obtained a search warrant, and seized marijuana, phones, ledgers, and cash; Taylor later admitted responsibility and was convicted in 2016.
Taylor filed a §2255 motion (2019) claiming trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress repoll/location data obtained via subpoena and used in the search-warrant affidavit; the district court denied relief, concluding a suppression motion would not have been meritorious given the government’s good-faith reliance on SCA orders and subpoenas.
The Fourth Circuit granted a limited COA on whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file a suppression motion based on the government’s acquisition of repoll number data.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Taylor)	Defendant's Argument (United States)	Held
Whether warrantless acquisition of repoll data was a Fourth Amendment search	Repoll numbers reveal location and are protected location information requiring a warrant	Repoll data is routine subscriber/call-routing information producible under the SCA by subpoena and is distinguishable from historical CSLI	Court assumed arguendo protection but held suppression would likely fail because gov't acted in good faith relying on then-valid SCA subpoenas and orders
Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress repoll data	Failure to move to suppress was deficient and prejudicial because the data supported the search warrant	Any suppression motion would not have been meritorious; evidence admissible under good-faith exception and subpoenas lawful in 2014	No ineffective assistance: suppression motion would likely have failed, so no prejudice under Strickland
Whether the government is responsible for Sprint producing repoll data beyond the subpoena’s explicit request	Government should have known Sprint would produce repoll data and should have sought to limit or not use it	Government requested only statutorily authorized subscriber/connection records; a provider’s voluntary over-production does not automatically render the government’s receipt unlawful	Court held the government not responsible for a provider’s overproduction and reasonably relied on the statutory framework in effect at the time

United States v. Graham, 796 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2015) (held historical CSLI was a search but evidence admitted where gov't relied on facially valid §2703(d) order)
United States v. Graham, 824 F.3d 421 (4th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (reversed earlier panel ruling on CSLI)
Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (Supreme Court held government must generally obtain a warrant for historical CSLI)
Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (third-party doctrine — no reasonable expectation of privacy in dialed numbers held by phone company)
United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) (no legitimate expectation of privacy in bank records held by bank)
Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (good-faith exception where officers reasonably rely on statute later found unconstitutional)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (good-faith reliance can excuse exclusionary rule application when officers reasonably rely on binding precedent)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)