United States v. Unknown
3:25-cr-00038
| S.D. Miss. | Feb 21, 2025Background
- The Government applied for four search warrants to acquire location and communication data from cell towers covering nine locations and specific timeframes, seeking to identify suspects in violent gang-related crimes.
- The data requested would include all devices that connected to relevant towers, covering hundreds or thousands of people, for a total of 14 hours across all locations.
- Affidavits revealed the Government would retain all obtained data through prosecution, disposing of extraneous records regarding uninvolved individuals only after final appeals.
- The court requested the Government address the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in United States v. Smith, which held that geofence warrants are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
- The applications, notably, did not seek the content of any communications, only identifying and transactional data tied to the devices at specified locations and times.
- The key question before the court was whether these "tower dump" warrants satisfy Fourth Amendment requirements of probable cause and particularity after the Smith precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tower dump warrants constitute a Fourth Amendment search | Not directly disputed | Not truly a search; seeking limited data, not as invasive as geofence/Carpenter | Yes, tower dump is a search under the Fourth Amendment |
| Whether the third-party doctrine defeats a privacy expectation | Data is voluntarily shared with providers; less privacy | Users do not meaningfully assume risk of sharing physical movement data with providers | Third-party doctrine does not apply; reasonable expectation of privacy exists |
| Whether the warrants are supported by probable cause and particularity | Scope justified by ongoing violent crimes; targeting groups | Warrant is overbroad, not based on individualized suspicion; impacts many innocent people | Not supported by probable cause/particularity; like prohibited general warrants |
| Whether recent precedent on geofence warrants applies to tower dumps | Not dispositive; tower data less granular | Smith controls; both seek similar identifying location data; concerns parallel | Smith is binding, warrants cannot issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018) (holding cell-site location data is protected by the Fourth Amendment and not subject to the traditional third-party doctrine)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (holding search of digital information on a cell phone generally requires a warrant)
- Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979) (requiring probable cause particularized to each person searched)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (Fourth Amendment prohibits general exploratory rummaging)
- Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981) (warrants must specify persons or places to be searched/seized)
- Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319 (1979) (prohibiting open-ended warrants that leave determination of scope to police discretion)