United States v. Graham
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26954
| D. Maryland | 2012Background
- Defendants Graham and Jordan are charged in a seventeen-count Second Superseding Indictment for armed Hobbs Act robberies in Baltimore in Jan–Feb 2011; multiple suppression motions were litigated, leaving only Graham’s Motion to Suppress Historical Cell Site Location Data (Jordan joining) as of Dec 8, 2011, which the court denied; two phones recovered at arrest matched the defendants’ numbers; cell-site data orders were issued under the Stored Communications Act (SCA) in March and July 2011; the data were provided by Sprint/Nextel and covered extensive time periods; the central issue is whether the government’s historical cell-site data collection violated the Fourth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SCA data collection without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment | Graham argues long-term data collection intrudes privacy | Government contends SCA provides adequate privacy protections and no warrant needed | No Fourth Amendment violation; SCA orders provide sufficient protection |
| Standing to challenge the data collection | Jordan’s fictitious registration implies no privacy interest | Location data are third-party records, lacking privacy | Standing treated within privacy-expectation framework; separate standing analysis not dispositive |
| Whether third-party doctrine applies to historical cell-site data | Data could create a mosaic privacy interest over time | Data are third-party business records; no privacy interest | Applicable; no legitimate expectation of privacy in third-party records; no Fourth Amendment violation |
| Whether suppression is the proper remedy given the data collection | If unconstitutional, evidence should be suppressed | Good faith reliance on SCA and magistrate orders makes suppression inappropriate | suppression not warranted; good-faith reliance found |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (Sup. Ct. 1979) (no privacy in information voluntarily conveyed to third party)
- Miller v. United States, 425 U.S. 435 (Sup. Ct. 1976) (bank records are third-party records; no reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Knotts v. United States, 460 U.S. 276 (Sup. Ct. 1983) (no privacy in movements on public roads without trespass)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. - (Sup. Ct. 2012) (GPS tracking as a search when physical trespass occurs; mosaic theory discussed)
- United States v. Bynum, 604 F.3d 161 (4th Cir. 2010) (subscriber information to internet provider not protected by Fourth Amendment)