United States v. Tony Reed, 978 F.3d 538

Background

Tony Lendell Reed committed a series of robberies in 2017 across Illinois, Minnesota, and Mississippi; the Government charged him with six Minnesota robberies (Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951).
The Government obtained historic cell-site location information (CSLI) for a phone linked to Reed (the “8219 phone”) via an 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) order covering April–December 2017; CSLI placed the phone near the robberies.
After Carpenter v. United States, Reed moved to suppress that CSLI; the district court denied suppression under the good-faith exception because officers reasonably relied on § 2703(d) pre-Carpenter.
At trial the court admitted evidence of several uncharged Illinois robberies as intrinsic/context evidence and admitted a December Mississippi tobacco-shop robbery under Rule 404(b) for identity, modus operandi, and phone-location corroboration.
The jury convicted Reed on all counts; at sentencing the court applied a two-level obstruction enhancement based on Reed’s trial denial of phone possession and a recorded custodial call instructing his girlfriend to distance herself from the phone; Reed was sentenced to 240 months and appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CSLI obtained via a § 2703(d) order must be suppressed post-Carpenter	Reed: § 2703(d) was obviously unconstitutional; officers were on notice (statutory choice, out-of-circuit Davis) so good-faith reliance was unreasonable	Government: officers reasonably relied on § 2703(d) pre-Carpenter under third‑party doctrine and magistrate approval; good-faith exception applies	Affirmed denial of suppression — officers reasonably relied on statute; exclusionary rule inapplicable
Admission of evidence about uncharged Illinois robberies	Reed: admission was improper propensity evidence and unfairly prejudicial	Government: evidence was intrinsic—provided context, showed routine/method, identity, and phone possession	Affirmed admission as intrinsic evidence; no abuse of discretion
Admission of Mississippi tobacco-shop robbery evidence under Rule 404(b)	Reed: impermissible other‑acts propensity evidence	Government: relevant to identity, modus operandi, phone location; probative value outweighed prejudice; similar in kind and close in time	Affirmed admission under Rule 404(b) — relevant, proved, probative > prejudicial, similar/close in time
Application of U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 obstruction enhancement	Reed: district court failed to make required findings; testimony could be mistake, not willful perjury	Government: trial testimony, contemporaneous texts/contacts linking phone, and recorded custodial call show willful false testimony and instruction to fabricate/distance	Affirmed enhancement — testimony was unequivocal perjury and recording supported obstruction finding

Key Cases Cited

Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in historic CSLI; § 2703(d) cannot be used in lieu of a probable‑cause warrant)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (exclusionary rule and the good‑faith exception framework)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (exclusionary rule’s deterrence rationale and limits)
Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (statutory‑reliance good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (third‑party doctrine on phone‑number pen‑register info)
United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (third‑party records and expectation of privacy principles)
United States v. Graham, 824 F.3d 421 (4th Cir. en banc decision on CSLI issues)
In re Application of the U.S. for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600 (5th Cir.) (discussing access to historical CSLI)
In re Application of the U.S. for an Order Directing a Provider of Electronic Communications Service to Disclose Records to Gov’t, 620 F.3d 304 (3d Cir.) (analysis of legal process for cell‑site data)
United States v. Davis, 754 F.3d 1205 (11th Cir.) (pre‑Carpenter decision recognizing expectation of privacy in CSLI)