United States v. Timothy Sanders
819 F.3d 880
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2011 FBI obtained court orders under the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2703(d)) for historical cell-site location information (CSLI) for numbers tied to a robbery ring; records covered ~127 days for Carpenter and ~88 days for Sanders.
- CSLI (call detail records and cell-tower/sector data) showed each defendant’s phone was within roughly 0.5–2 miles of several robberies at relevant times.
- Carpenter and Sanders were convicted of multiple Hobbs Act robberies (18 U.S.C. § 1951) and related § 924(c) firearm counts; district court denied their motion to suppress the CSLI.
- Both defendants appealed: key claims included a Fourth Amendment challenge to warrantless CSLI collection, sufficiency of § 2703(d) applications, venue for an Ohio robbery count, evidentiary rulings about an FBI report, and sentencing challenges.
- Majority held collection of these business records containing CSLI was not a Fourth Amendment search (treating CSLI as third‑party routing/business records akin to Smith v. Maryland) and affirmed convictions and sentences; Judge Stranch concurred in part and expressed concern about long‑term CSLI collection and favored developing a doctrine sensitive to comprehensive location tracking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether government collection of historical CSLI from carriers without a probable‑cause warrant violated the Fourth Amendment | Carpenter/Sanders: CSLI reveals detailed location information and long‑term collection is equivalent to GPS tracking (Jones) and thus requires a warrant | Government: CSLI are business/routing records voluntarily exposed to third parties (Smith/Miller); obtained under SCA §2703(d) so no warrant required | Held: No Fourth Amendment search — CSLI here is third‑party routing/business record and Smith controls; SCA order lawful as applied |
| Whether the §2703(d) applications failed to show “reasonable grounds” and required suppression | Sanders: applications did not establish reasonable grounds and CSLI should be suppressed | Government: SCA provides civil remedies, not suppression; orders were lawful | Held: Suppression unavailable under SCA; claim fails |
| Venue for counts charging participation in a Warren, Ohio robbery | Carpenter: trial in Eastern District of Michigan lacked venue for Ohio robbery counts | Government: Carpenter’s recruiting, planning, and preparatory acts occurred in Eastern District of Michigan, supplying venue | Held: Venue proper — sufficient evidence that Carpenter’s accessorial acts occurred in Eastern District of Michigan |
| Evidentiary & sentencing challenges (use of FBI report to refresh/impeach witness; Eighth Amendment and §924(c) mandatory minimums; Guidelines applications) | Carpenter: district court erred by denying use of Ruiz report to refresh/impeach witness; sentence grossly disproportionate; mandatory minimums unconstitutional. Sanders: guideline enhancements misapplied and sentence excessive | Government: report could not be used because witness did not need memory refreshed and had not adopted report; sentences within precedent and statutory scheme; enhancements supported by testimony | Held: District court properly excluded report; Carpenter’s sentence not Eighth Amendment violation and mandatory minimums constitutional; Sanders’s Guidelines and 170‑month sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (established expectation‑of‑privacy test beyond property trespass)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (pen‑register/third‑party exposure doctrine; numbers voluntarily conveyed to phone company)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (GPS vehicular tracking; plurality and concurrences recognizing privacy concerns from long‑term location monitoring)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (smartphone contents generally require a warrant)
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) (no Fourth Amendment protection for business records held by third parties)
- United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010) (email content protection; limits on SCA where content is sought without warrant)
- United States v. Skinner, 690 F.3d 772 (6th Cir. 2012) (cell‑phone GPS data over short period; acknowledged concern over comprehensive tracking)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (good‑faith reliance on statute may preclude suppression)