5 F.4th 706
7th Cir.2021Background
- Dec. 2013: A store in Ann Arbor was burglarized; ~24 firearms and other goods worth >$208,000 were stolen.
- Police used the Stored Communications Act (SCA) procedures: Comcast (store provider) voluntarily gave a blocked caller’s number under an exigent request; Sprint voluntarily provided cell‑site location information showing the phone in Ann Arbor during the burglary timeframe and a Comfort Inn reservation in Rosario’s name.
- Investigators later obtained §2703(d) court orders for broader Comcast and Sprint records; Rosario was indicted for transporting stolen goods and being a felon in possession of a firearm and moved to suppress the cell‑site data.
- The district court denied suppression pre‑Carpenter relying on the third‑party doctrine; Rosario was convicted at trial.
- After Carpenter v. United States (2018) held that historical cell‑site records implicate the Fourth Amendment and generally require a warrant, Rosario sought a new trial; the district court denied relief, finding good‑faith reliance on the SCA and that the data would have been inevitably discovered.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding (1) officers reasonably relied on SCA exigent disclosure and later court orders, and (2) the inevitable discovery doctrine independently justified admission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether acquiring historical cell‑site location information from a provider without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment | Rosario: Carpenter requires a probable‑cause warrant for such records; admission violated Fourth Amendment | Government: at the time officers relied on SCA procedures and prevailing third‑party doctrine; later obtained §2703(d) orders | Court recognizes Carpenter but resolved suppression claim under other doctrines (good‑faith and inevitable discovery) |
| Whether exclusionary rule bars the evidence given officers’ reliance on SCA exigent‑disclosure | Rosario: no true exigency (the theft did not create imminent danger), so reliance on §2702(c)(4) was not in good faith | Government: officers presented facts (large number of stolen handguns, public safety risk) and acted in good faith under §2702(c)(4) and later §2703(d) orders | Court held officers acted in good faith; exclusionary rule does not apply |
| Whether the inevitable‑discovery doctrine permits admission of the cell‑site records | Rosario: officers would not necessarily have sought or obtained warrants absent the initial SCA disclosures | Government: there was a clear chain of probable cause (caller ID, timing, location) and officers certainly would have applied for warrants | Court held by preponderance that warrants would have been obtained and the records inevitably discovered |
| Whether Rosario is entitled to a new trial or acquittal based on suppression error | Rosario: conviction tainted by unlawfully obtained records | Government: any error was excused (good faith/inevitable discovery) and harmless | Court affirmed denial of new trial and upheld convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (historical cell‑site location records implicate Fourth Amendment; warrant generally required)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (third‑party doctrine regarding numbers dialed and expectation of privacy)
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (good‑faith reliance on statute can preclude suppression)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (inevitable discovery doctrine permits admission if evidence would have been lawfully discovered)
- United States v. Marrocco, 578 F.3d 627 (7th Cir. 2009) (two‑prong Seventh Circuit test for inevitable discovery)
- United States v. Curtis, 901 F.3d 846 (7th Cir. 2018) (addressing post‑Carpenter suppression and good‑faith SCA reliance)
- United States v. Hammond, 996 F.3d 374 (7th Cir. 2021) (applies Carpenter and discusses exclusionary rule and good faith under SCA)