United States v. Powell
943 F. Supp. 2d 759
E.D. Mich.2013Background
- Criminal drug conspiracy case in which eight defendants move to suppress a variety of physical, electronic, and vehicle-search evidence.
- Court previously held standing for Carlos Powell and Eric Powell to challenge some challenged evidence and reserved ruling on others after an evidentiary hearing.
- Challenged evidence includes pen-register/trap-trace data, real-time cell-site location data (lat/long), GPS tracking data, warrantless vehicle searches, and searches of nine Detroit-area properties.
- March 11, 2010 real-time cell-site warrants sought to locate Powell’s cell phone; subsequent warrants extended tracking for months.
- GPS device affixed to Powell/Powell vehicles used during investigation; several traffic stops yielded seized narcotics and cash.
- Court denies suppression in full but analyzes Fourth Amendment, statutory authorities, and good-faith considerations across multiple evidence streams.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge evidence | Powells claim standing via ownership of devices. | Only owners possess standing; non-owners lack privacy interest. | Powells have standing; others lack standing in whole motion. |
| Probable cause for long-term real-time cell-site data warrants | Warrants supported by probable cause based on informants and corroboration. | No nexus between phone, suspect, and crime; too long tracking period. | Probable cause required tailored showing; first March 11, 2010 warrant lacking sufficient nexus and duration. |
| Good-faith exception for real-time cell-site warrants | Warrants issued by neutral judge; good faith applies. | Lack of probable cause undermines reliance. | Good-faith exception applies; evidence admissible. |
| Fruit of the poisonous tree for subsequent cell-site warrants | Illegally obtained data tainted later warrants. | Derived warrants should be excluded. | Derivative evidence admitted under good-faith and independent basis; no suppression. |
| GPS tracking device installation and traffic-stop evidence | GPS tracking lawful; stops yield admissible evidence. | Installation/search violates Fourth Amendment; inevitable suppression. | Evidence admissible via attenuation, inevitable discovery, and independent sources; stops allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Skinner, 690 F.3d 772 (6th Cir. 2012) (cell-site data privacy recognized; long-term tracking implicated)
- Knotts, 460 U.S. 275 (U.S. 1983) (beeper tracking on public roads; privacy limits when entering private spaces)
- Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (U.S. 1984) (beeper location inside private residence requires warrant)
- Jones, Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (U.S. 2012) (GPS tracking duration and privacy implications)
- Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (distinction between historical vs. real-time/location data)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good-faith exception to suppression when warrant backed by probable cause)
- United States v. Buford, 632 F.3d 264 (6th Cir. 2011) (good-faith reliance on warrant generally admissible)
- Gardiner, 463 F.3d 445 (6th Cir. 2006) (probable cause judged on totality of the affidavit)