3 F.4th 1102
8th Cir.2021Background
- Over several months an unidentified robber committed or attempted multiple near-closing store robberies in the Twin Cities using a consistent modus operandi (red/black duffel, hooded jacket, dark hat, black face mask, ordering employees to a back room at gunpoint).
- Security footage failed to identify the perpetrator, so investigators obtained state search warrants to collect cellular-tower connection records for roughly 90-minute windows around each robbery.
- Comparing tower-connection records across incidents produced a “common number” that led police to Martavis James; he was arrested during a later attempted robbery and items matching the robber’s property were found in his car.
- James was federally charged with 8 robberies and 2 attempted robberies and moved to suppress the cellular-tower evidence, arguing lack of probable cause and lack of particularity.
- The district court denied suppression; after conviction, James appealed. The Eighth Circuit reviewed legal questions de novo and affirmed the denial of the suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to search cell-site records | James: No demonstrated nexus between the robber and any cell phone; warrants speculative | Government: Multiple incidents with identical MO made it reasonably probable the robber used a phone; tower records could identify him | Affirmed — judges had a substantial basis for probable cause; reasonable inferences about ubiquitous phone use suffice |
| Particularity and scope of warrants (CDR detail) | James: Warrants were overbroad, allowing broad call-detail records beyond what was needed | Government: Warrants were geographically (specific towers) and temporally (approx. 90-minute windows, exact times) limited; alternatively, good-faith reliance | Affirmed — warrants sufficiently definite; alternatively, officers acted in good faith under Leon |
| Standing to challenge the warrants | James: He had Fourth Amendment standing to seek suppression | Government: Standing need not be resolved | Court assumed standing for purposes of decision and did not decide the issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. 320 (probable cause need not meet high bar)
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (cell phones are ubiquitous and relevant to privacy in location data)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Johnson, 848 F.3d 872 (review—substantial-basis standard for magistrate probable-cause findings)
- United States v. Wallace, 550 F.3d 729 (definition of fair probability for probable cause)
- United States v. LaMorie, 100 F.3d 547 (appellate review of magistrate probable-cause decision)
- United States v. Horn, 187 F.3d 781 (particularity requirement and sufficiency of warrant descriptions)
- United States v. Fiorito, 640 F.3d 338 (warrant particularity principles)
- United States v. Tellez, 217 F.3d 547 (nexus requirement for probable cause)
- Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (particularity prevents general searches)