United States v. Miller
50 F. Supp. 3d 717
D. Maryland2014Background
- Federal indictment charging Lyndon Miller and Sophia Warmington with a multi-kilogram drug conspiracy and related counts (seven counts); Warmington pled guilty to Count One; Miller proceeded with multiple pretrial suppression motions.
- Law enforcement obtained Maryland state court ex parte wiretap orders (May–June 2013) and GPS court orders (April–June 2013) targeting phones and rental/associated vehicles used by Miller.
- Wiretap applications relied on confidential informants, controlled buys, surveillance, financial investigation, and frequent rental-car usage by Miller.
- Multiple GPS orders authorized attaching tracking devices to vehicles Miller used, including an order authorizing tracking of rental vehicles Miller might use during a 60‑day period.
- Miller was arrested June 22, 2013; officers seized several cellphones and activated them post‑arrest to confirm phone numbers; searches and other seizures followed under search warrants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Miller) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of state wiretap orders (probable cause, minimization, exhaustion, particularity, extraterritorial interceptions) | Affidavit supplied ample probable cause and necessity; judge supervised via progress reports and minimization guidelines; listening post in Harford County made interceptions lawful | Orders lacked probable cause, failed to minimize, did not exhaust less intrusive means, were general warrants, and unlawfully intercepted calls when parties were in Pennsylvania | Court upheld wiretap: affidavit sufficient for probable cause and necessity; minimization and judicial supervision reasonable; extraterritorial challenge rejected because interceptions were first heard at Harford County listening post; officers entitled to rely on facially valid orders (good‑faith) |
| GPS tracking orders (scope; anticipatory/particularity) | Orders valid: affidavit showed Miller habitually rented/churned vehicles and probable cause to track vehicles he would use; officers reasonably relied on orders | April 30 order only authorized GPS on two specifically referenced April rental cars; broader use on later vehicles was unauthorized; anticipatory warrant requirements unmet | Court concluded the April 30 order reasonably authorized GPS on rental vehicles Miller would use during 60 days; probable cause supported and officers acted in objective good faith, so suppression denied |
| Warrantless activation/search of seized cellphones (Riley) | At time of arrest Fourth Circuit precedent permitted searching phones incident to arrest; officers therefore acted in good faith and exclusion is unwarranted | Riley requires warrants for phone searches incident to arrest; activation/searches were unlawful and evidence should be suppressed | Court denied suppression: seizure/activation predated Riley; officers followed then‑binding Fourth Circuit precedent (Murphy) and reliance falls within Leon/Davis good‑faith principles |
| Search of residence and tangible evidence (search warrant particularity and probable cause) | Affidavit established nexus between Miller and residence and probable cause to search/seize described items | Boilerplate challenge that warrant lacked particularity and probable cause | Court found affidavit provided ample probable cause and particularity; suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Clerkley, 556 F.2d 709 (4th Cir. 1977) (factors for reviewing wiretap authorizations)
- Davis v. State, 426 Md. 211 (Md. 2012) (Maryland adopts federal "listening post" approach for jurisdictional reach of wiretap orders)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (cellphone searches generally require a warrant)
- United States v. Murphy, 552 F.3d 405 (4th Cir. 2009) (pre‑Riley Fourth Circuit precedent allowing cellphone search incident to arrest)
- United States v. DePew, 932 F.2d 324 (4th Cir. 1991) (probable cause standard for wiretap affidavits)