United States v. Takai
943 F. Supp. 2d 1315
D. Utah2013Background
- June 15, 2011, investigation of the Redwood Road 7‑Eleven robbery and the California Avenue beer theft with video identified Defendant as the suspect in both incidents.
- Detectives Merino and other gang unit officers identified Defendant as the primary suspect in the California Avenue theft and linked him to the Redwood Road robbery through video comparison.
- Gang unit detectives informed others that Defendant was violent and armed and dangerous, prompting stakeouts at known hangouts including The Garage on Pacific Avenue.
- An emergency 2702(c)(4) cellphone GPS pinging request was made to AT&T to track Defendant’s phones in order to rapidly locate him during the fast‑moving investigation.
- Around 11:30 p.m., officers observed three men leaving The Garage; they approached, recognized Defendant from a mugshot, and then detained and interviewed him in the early hours of June 16.
- Defendant was Mirandized; in the first interview he denied involvement and was later booked for the California Avenue theft; a week later he confessed during a second interview with Detective Coats and Special Agent Quirk.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Franks hearing—intentional falsehood or reckless disregard | Franks burden met due to alleged deliberate falsehoods | Spangenberg acted with reckless disregard by omittingLaundry items (pants washing) | Denied Franks hearing; no clear deliberate falsehood found |
| Warrantless use of GPS pinging under 2702—emergency exception and good faith | Emergency emergency data disclosure valid under 2702(c)(4) | Need for warrant under historical CSLI framework; emergency exception limited | Emergency exception and good faith reliance upheld; suppression denied except one paragraph struck from affidavit |
| Arrest—probable cause for arrest | Probable cause existed based on video identification | Arrest improperly based on investigation timing | Probable cause established; arrest upheld; suppression denied |
| Miranda warnings and voluntariness of statements | Second-interview confession admissible after proper warnings | First-interview warning defective; coercion concerns in second interview | First interview suppressed; second-interview confession admitted; search warrant intact with limited redaction |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (standard for Franks hearing: intentional falsehood or reckless disregard required)
- United States v. Barajas, 710 F.3d 1102 (10th Cir. 2013) (good faith reliance on warrant provisions extending to GPS data)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1987) (extends Leon good faith to reliance on statutory scheme)
- United States v. Pacheco, 819 F. Supp. 2d 1239 (D. Utah 2011) (Miranda warnings sufficiency and voluntariness analysis within totality of circumstances)