775 F.Supp.3d 1036
D. Ariz.2025Background
- Defendant Viorel Pricop is charged with three counts of arson involving Swift Transport trailers, where a series of fires occurred in Arizona and other states between 2020 and 2022.
- Investigators obtained four separate orders under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) to collect cell tower data ("tower dumps") near the locations and times of the fires, seeking subscriber and device information to identify potential suspects present at multiple fire scenes.
- The Defense moved to suppress all cell phone data obtained from the tower dumps, arguing the data was obtained unconstitutionally and without probable cause.
- Oral argument was held, and the court took the matter under advisement before issuing this opinion.
- The Court's order denied the Motion to Suppress, finding that the tower dumps did not violate the Fourth Amendment and, even if they had, the good faith exception would apply.
Issues
| Issue | Pricop's Argument | USA's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are tower dumps a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause? | Tower dumps are a search; require probable cause. | Not a search under Carpenter; only short-term, limited data. | No; tower dumps not a search requiring probable cause. |
| If probable cause was required, did the agents act in good faith? | Reliance on § 2703(d) was unreasonable; no probable cause. | Agents relied on existing law/statute in good faith; no bad faith. | Good faith exception applies due to reasonable reliance on statute. |
| Did the lack of recorded testimony violate Rule 41? | No recording/transcript required by Rule 41; procedural violation. | § 2703(d) orders are not warrants; Rule 41(d) does not apply. | No violation; Rule 41(d) inapplicable to § 2703(d) orders. |
| Did the orders violate Pricop's Fourth Amendment rights more broadly? | Swept too broadly; tracked over 1 million people's movements. | Orders were reasonable, limited, and supported by affidavits. | Orders were lawful and reasonable under § 2703(d). |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (Supreme Court held that obtaining historical CSLI for extended periods is a search under the Fourth Amendment, but declined to decide on tower dumps.)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (Establishes the reasonable expectation of privacy standard for Fourth Amendment analysis.)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (Clarifies reasonable search and privacy expectations under the Fourth Amendment.)
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (Discusses the good faith exception for reliance on unconstitutional statutes.)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (Good faith exception applies where police rely on binding precedent or statutes.)