United States v. Lambis
197 F. Supp. 3d 606
| S.D.N.Y. | 2016Background
- In 2015 DEA obtained a pen-register/CSLI warrant for a target phone and located it broadly in Washington Heights near 177th & Broadway, but could not identify a specific apartment.
- A DEA technician then used a cell-site simulator (StingRay) at the street and inside a building to force the target phone to transmit and to pinpoint the strongest signal to Lambis’s apartment unit.
- Later that evening agents, after being directed to the unit by the simulator data, obtained consent from Lambis’s father to enter and from Lambis to search his bedroom; they seized narcotics and paraphernalia.
- Lambis moved to suppress the evidence as the product of an unconstitutional search by the cell-site simulator.
- The court held the use of the cell-site simulator constituted a Fourth Amendment search analogous to Kyllo because it revealed details of the home not previously knowable without physical intrusion and the device is not in general public use.
- The court rejected government arguments that (a) an existing CSLI warrant covered the simulator use, (b) consent attenuated the initial illegality, and (c) the third-party doctrine permitted the search; suppression was ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether using a cell-site simulator to locate a phone in an apartment is a Fourth Amendment search | Simulator use is a search because it reveals interior details of the home not otherwise knowable and is not in general public use | No search under Kyllo; simulator only provides location (CSLI), and government already had a CSLI warrant | Use of the cell-site simulator is a Fourth Amendment search; warrant required and none was obtained |
| Whether prior CSLI warrant justified or subsumed simulator use | Prior CSLI warrant did not authorize more precise, active location-finding by a simulator | Warrant for CSLI covers location collection; no separate warrant needed | Simulator use exceeded the CSLI warrant’s scope; Horton principles bar relying on it |
| Whether consent to enter/search attenuated the taint of the illegal simulator search | Consent was tainted because it was obtained shortly after and as a direct result of the illegal search | Consent from Lambis and his father was voluntary and broke causal chain | Attenuation factors (temporal proximity, no intervening circumstances, purpose of misconduct) weigh for suppression; consent was tainted |
| Whether the third-party doctrine permits simulator use without a warrant | Simulator-forced pings are not voluntary disclosures to a third party and are actively induced by the government | Location data is like CSLI or pen-register info and falls under the third-party doctrine | Third-party doctrine inapplicable to simulator data: the government actively collected data (no third party intermediary); doctrine does not justify the search |
Key Cases Cited
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (use of non‑public sensing technology to reveal details of the home is a search requiring a warrant)
- United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) (monitoring a beeper in a private residence violates the Fourth Amendment and a warrant is required)
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (distinguishes certain tracking techniques but does not authorize through‑the‑wall or interior home surveillance)
- United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359 (2d Cir. 1985) (canine sniff at a home constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (evidence seized beyond the scope of a valid warrant is unconstitutional)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (taint/attenuation analysis for evidence derived from unlawful police conduct)
- Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016) (attenuation factors to determine whether evidence is admissible despite prior illegality)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (third-party doctrine: information voluntarily disclosed to third parties carries reduced Fourth Amendment protection)
- In re U.S. for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2013) (discussion of expectations of privacy in cumulative CSLI)