320 F. Supp. 3d 956
M.D. Tenn.2018Background
- Defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained from historical cell-site location information (CSLI) for phone number 931-*-6154 ("T3") and sought suppression of evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant for 76 Oakes Lane, Pikeville, TN. Hearing held July 25, 2018.
- Government traced T3 to Defendant via a CLEAR/Experian entry tied to Ford Motor Credit; Defendant denies owning, possessing, controlling, or knowing about T3 and asserts it may have been planted or used to follow him.
- Detective testimony identified T3 through database records; Defendant admitted use of a different phone (T2), which was not at issue.
- Agent Musgrave’s affidavit in support of the Oakes Lane warrant relied principally on the alleged victim (Defendant’s estranged wife), who reported prior personal observations of Defendant manufacturing/exploding devices, possessing numerous firearms and reloading equipment (last seen April 2016), and no NFA registration for Defendant.
- Defendant alleged three material defects in the warrant affidavit: (1) a misidentification of Defendant in a Kangaroo Market surveillance video, (2) incorrect CSLI time-duration statements for T3 in Franklin/NHC area, and (3) omission that the alleged victim had handled the bomb. The Government conceded the first two inaccuracies but argued remaining affidavit content still established probable cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge collection/use of CSLI for T3 | CSLI collection implicated privacy only when tied to a person who possesses/controls the phone; Carpenter supports warrant requirement for CSLI of a phone’s owner | Defendant: Carpenter and Byrd allow challenge of CSLI that tracked his movements even if he did not possess/own the phone; CSLI reveals intimate movements so he has Fourth Amendment interest | Denied standing: Defendant lacked ownership, possession, control, or knowledge of T3; Carpenter does not extend privacy interest to phones a person unknowingly is tracked by; traditional Fourth Amendment personal-interest principles control |
| Whether a Franks hearing required for alleged false statements in warrant affidavit | Even assuming recklessness for the misidentification and CSLI timing errors, the affidavit sans false material still supports probable cause, so no Franks hearing required | Defendant: alleged false statements were necessary to establish probable cause, so Franks hearing required | No Franks hearing; removing conceded inaccuracies, the remaining affidavit provided a fair probability weapons/explosives would be found at 76 Oakes Lane |
| Materiality of omission that alleged victim handled the bomb | Omission not material; affidavit judged by what it contains and need not include every fact; handling might help but does not defeat probable cause | Omission of victim handling was material and showed recklessness/omission undermining probable cause | Omission not sufficient to require suppression; court limited to commonsense review of remaining affidavit and found probable cause remained |
| Sufficiency of probable cause for search warrant after excising inaccuracies | Affidavit contained credible eyewitness observations of explosives/firearms possession, recent detonations, and lack of NFA registration; durable nature of weapons made observations non-stale | Defendant argued the inaccuracies undermined the nexus and timing needed for probable cause | Probable cause upheld: eyewitness statements and corroborating information supported fair probability contraband/evidence would be found at the residence |
Key Cases Cited
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (Sup. Ct.) (Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (Sup. Ct.) (Fourth Amendment rights are personal; standing requires legitimate expectation of privacy)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (Sup. Ct.) (reasonable expectation of privacy test)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (Sup. Ct.) (requirements for hearing when affidavit contains false statements or reckless omissions)
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (Sup. Ct.) (CSLI implicates privacy of physical movements; generally requires warrant when phone is the defendant’s)
- Byrd v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1518 (Sup. Ct.) (possession/control and right to exclude inform analysis of Fourth Amendment standing)