United States v. Wheeler
169 F. Supp. 3d 896
E.D. Wis.2016Background
- Defendant Wheeler is federally charged with Hobbs Act robbery and a § 924(c) firearm offense.
- Defendant moved to suppress Sprint cell-site location data under the Stored Communications Act (SCA) seeking a warrant-based standard.
- Magistrate Judge Jones recommended denying suppression, applying good-faith and rejecting a Fourth Amendment search issue.
- Wheeler objected, urging merits-based Fourth Amendment consideration on whether CSLI is a search.
- Court grants merits consideration and analyzes whether CSLI collection qualifies as a Fourth Amendment search.
- Court denies Wheeler’s motion to suppress, holding CSLI collection is not a Fourth Amendment search and is permissible under a § 2703(d) order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether obtaining CSLI is a Fourth Amendment search | Wheeler argues CSLI is a search requiring a warrant. | Government argues no Fourth Amendment search; good-faith basis under SCA. | Not a Fourth Amendment search; motion denied. |
| Whether the good-faith exception applies to the suppression ruling | N/A in briefing; focus on merits. | Government contends good-faith reliance on SCA procedures supports denial. | Good-faith exception applies; suppression denied on merits. |
| Whether the court should address merits given prior recommendations | Argues for merits-based Fourth Amendment ruling. | Judge Jones’ recommendation focused on good faith. | Court addressed merits and held CSLI not a search. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 785 F.3d 498 (11th Cir.2015) (en banc holding CSLI orders do not violate the Fourth Amendment)
- In re United States for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600 (4th Cir.2013) (cell-site data not a Fourth Amendment search per panel decision (en banc implicated))
- United States v. Graham, 796 F.3d 332 (4th Cir.2015) (en banc review; CSLI-not-a-search reasoning contested)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (warrant required for cell-phone data seized incident to arrest; broad privacy concerns)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (third-party doctrine; no reasonable expectation of privacy in numbers dialed)
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (GPS monitoring as a search when trespass occurs; physical intrusion principles)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (use of sense-enhancing tech to reveal interior details is a Fourth Amendment intrusion)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (reasonable expectation of privacy; privacy extends beyond physical trespass)
- Karo v. United States, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) (beeper monitoring within residence; trespass and privacy concerns)
- Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (sensor tracking not a search when in public spaces; enhances senses with technology)
- Miller v. United States, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) (no legitimate expectation of privacy in bank records)
- California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988) (no expectation of privacy in curbside garbage)