United States v. Riley
858 F.3d 1012
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Police obtained a state-court order compelling AT&T to produce call metadata, CSLI, and real-time GPS "ping" location data for a cell phone linked to Montai Riley after an armed-robbery arrest warrant issued.
- AT&T provided repeated GPS coordinates; within hours marshals learned the phone was at the Airport Inn in Memphis.
- Marshals confirmed Riley’s identity at the motel desk (he’d checked in under an alias), learned his room number from the clerk, entered, and arrested Riley; officers observed a firearm in plain view.
- Riley was later indicted federally for being a felon in possession of a firearm and moved to suppress evidence as the fruit of unconstitutional cell-phone GPS tracking.
- The district court denied suppression relying on United States v. Skinner and because an arrest warrant justified obtaining location info; Riley reserved the Fourth Amendment issue on appeal.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding short-term GPS tracking that revealed only public movements (not interior details of a dwelling or specific hotel room) is not a Fourth Amendment search under Skinner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether compelled real-time GPS tracking of Riley’s cell phone was a Fourth Amendment search | Riley: GPS pinging invaded a reasonable expectation of privacy and required a warrant; evidence should be suppressed | Government: Short-term tracking of GPS/CSLI revealing only public movements is not a search under Skinner; arrest warrant justified tracking | Tracking for ~7 hours that located Riley at the motel (but not inside the room) was not a Fourth Amendment search; suppression denied (affirmed) |
| Whether tracking that leads to a hotel room intrudes on the home/hotel privacy interest | Riley: location tracking that results in arrest inside a hotel room implicates the home/hotel protections (Kyllo/Karo) | Government: GPS here only disclosed presence at the motel — public movement — and did not reveal interior details | Court: No search because tracking did not reveal interior movements or identify the specific room; Kyllo/Karo concerns not triggered |
| Applicability of third-party doctrine / expectation of privacy in provider-held location data | Riley: disclosure to provider and compelled production does not erase constitutional protections for location within private spaces | Government: voluntarily procured phone/location data and public-movement context defeat a reasonable expectation of privacy | Court: Skinner controls for short-term public-movement tracking; third-party doctrine and voluntary disclosure weigh against privacy, but Kyllo/Karo still constrain tracking of interior-only information |
| Whether fugitive/arrest-warrant status changes Fourth Amendment analysis | Riley: not raised as primary; argued constitutional protection remains | Government (and concurrence): valid arrest warrant + reasonable suspicion phone is with fugitive further reduce expectation of privacy | Concurrence: even if GPS tracked interior, valid arrest warrant and reasonable suspicion that fugitive possessed the phone would permit tracking to execute the warrant |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Skinner, 690 F.3d 772 (6th Cir. 2012) (short-term real-time cell-phone GPS tracking of movements on public roads is not a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (physical trespass to install GPS tracker was a search)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (reasonable expectation of privacy test)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (sense-enhancing tech to learn interior home details is a search)
- United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) (monitoring tracking device inside private residences can be a search)
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (tracking that only reveals movements on public roads is not a search)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (valid arrest warrant permits warrantless entry to effectuate arrest)
- Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (1961) (home privacy is at the core of Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) (third-party doctrine for bank records)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (pen register installation and third-party disclosure)
- United States v. Carpenter, 819 F.3d 880 (6th Cir. 2016) (discussion of GPS accuracy and differences between GPS and CSLI)
- United States v. Allen, 106 F.3d 695 (6th Cir. 1997) (hotel rooms entitled to Fourth Amendment protections)