United States v. Melvin Skinner, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16920

Skinner convicted on drug trafficking and money laundering conspiracy based on GPS data from his pay-as-you-go phone used during interstate drug transportation.
Magistrate judge held Skinner lacked standing to suppress the GPS evidence because the phone was not his subscriber device and used in a criminal scheme; the district court adopted this and denied suppression.
Authorities obtained magistrate orders to obtain subscriber information, cell-site data, real-time GPS location, and ping data for the 6447 phone, then for the 6820 phone, to track the vehicle carrying drugs.
DEA tracked Skinner’s movements over three days without visual surveillance and located a motorhome with over 1,100 pounds of marijuana at a Texas rest stop; Skinner and his son were arrested.
Skinner challenged Fourth Amendment legality, sufficiency of evidence for money-laundering conspiracy, and request for a mitigating role reduction; appellate review affirmed on the Fourth Amendment and sufficiency grounds, with Judge Donnell concurring in part.
The opinion notes that the concurrence disagrees on whether Skinner had a reasonable expectation of privacy in GPS data, but agrees the overall judgment should be affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether GPS data from Skinner’s GPS-enabled pay-as-you-go phone violated the Fourth Amendment.	Skinner contends GPS data from his phone was a search requiring a warrant.	Government contends Skinner had no reasonable expectation of privacy in location data from a voluntarily used device on public roads.	No Fourth Amendment violation; data was not a search.
Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Skinner of conspiracy to commit money laundering.	Skinner argues lack of sufficient evidence tying him to money-laundering conspiracy.	Government asserts Skinner transported drug proceeds and thus supported conspiracy.	Sufficient evidence supported conviction.
Whether Skinner qualified for a mitigating role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.	Skinner asserts a minor role as mule meriting reduction.	District court properly denied reduction given indispensable role in conspiracy.	District court did not clearly err; no mitigating role reduction.

Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (U.S. 1983) (tracking within public view; no privacy expectation in movements on public roadways)
Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (U.S. 2012) (trepassory test; physical intrusion not present here; distinguish Knotts)
Forest, 355 F.3d 942 (6th Cir. 2004) (cell-site data augments sensory observation; no search)
Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (U.S. 1984) (beeper in container; no privacy interest in beeper location when owner had contact with container)
Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (U.S. 2008) (proceeds may mean gross receipts, not profits in money laundering context)
Crosgrove, 637 F.3d 646 (6th Cir. 2011) (proceeds defined; merger concerns; receipts can be proceeds in many contexts)
Kratt, 579 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. 2009) (proceeds includes gross receipts when no merger problem)
Smith, 601 F.3d 530 (6th Cir. 2010) (proceeds may include gross receipts; Santos concurrence noted)