United States v. William Wallace
16-40702
| 5th Cir. | May 22, 2017Background
- Wallace, a confirmed gang member with multiple prior violent-felony convictions and an outstanding state arrest warrant, was located using two state-authorized “Ping Orders” that obtained prospective cell-site (E911) data from AT&T.
- Officers used the real-time location data to arrest Wallace near a pond; they recovered a pistol, ammunition, and related items and charged him as a felon in possession of a firearm.
- Wallace moved to suppress the physical evidence and related testimony, arguing the Ping Orders were invalid (not issued for an “ongoing criminal investigation”) and that accessing prospective cell-site data required a probable-cause warrant under the Fourth Amendment.
- The district court denied suppression and upheld the statutes; Wallace appealed the suppression ruling.
- Separately, Wallace pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting retaliation against a witness and waived most appellate rights; sentencing was consolidated and the district court imposed concurrent 180-month terms.
Issues
| Issue | Wallace's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suppression is an available remedy for violations of the federal pen-trap statute, the SCA, or Texas Art. 18.21 | Ping Order was invalid; suppression required because statutory requirements weren’t met | Statutes provide exclusive remedies; suppression is not authorized | Suppression is not available; statutes provide exclusive remedies, so district court did not err |
| Whether obtaining prospective cell-site (E911) data is a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause and a warrant | Real-time location tracking is a search and required a probable-cause warrant | Prospective cell-site data is like historical cell-site records (third-party business records) and falls outside Fourth Amendment search rules | Prospective cell-site data falls outside the Fourth Amendment under circuit precedent; SCA §2703(d) orders are not per se unconstitutional |
| Even if a Fourth Amendment search, whether exclusion is required (good-faith exception) | Officers’ reliance on court orders/statutes was not reasonable so exclusion should apply | Officers reasonably relied on SCA/statute and court orders; good-faith exception applies | Good-faith exception applies; officers reasonably relied on statute and court order; suppression not warranted |
| Whether an adverse sentencing remand was required if firearms conviction overturned | Requested remand for sentence if firearms conviction invalidated | Sentencing reconsideration depends on validity of firearms conviction; appeal limited by plea waiver on other count | Because suppression denial affirmed, remand request is moot and dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Turner, 839 F.3d 429 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. German, 486 F.3d 849 (5th Cir.) (suppression not available for pen-trap statute violations)
- United States v. Guerrero, 768 F.3d 351 (5th Cir.) (suppression not available for SCA violations)
- In re U.S. for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600 (5th Cir.) (historical/prospective cell-site data as business records outside Fourth Amendment in this Circuit)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (reasonable reliance on statute can trigger good-faith exception)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (framework for reasonable expectation of privacy in technology searches)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (reasonable expectation of privacy test)
- United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976) (presumption of constitutionality for Acts of Congress)
- United States v. Skinner, 690 F.3d 772 (6th Cir.) (holding prospective cell-site tracking is not a Fourth Amendment search)