United States v. William Wallace
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14311
5th Cir.2017Background
- Wallace, a confirmed gang member with multiple prior violent-felony convictions and an outstanding warrant for a probation violation, was located via real-time E911/Ping data tied to his cell phone and arrested; officers recovered a pistol and ammunition and charged him as a felon in possession.
- DPS obtained two Ping Orders (state-authorized) and also sought authority under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) (SCA) to get real-time location data; Wallace’s phone had been turned off for the first ping and located on the second.
- Wallace moved to suppress the gun, ammo, and related testimony, arguing the Ping Order was invalid because it was not for an "ongoing criminal investigation" (he contended that a probation-violation arrest warrant did not qualify) and that the E911 data seizure violated the Fourth Amendment absent a probable-cause warrant.
- The district court denied suppression and upheld the statutes; Wallace appealed (his plea preserved the suppression issue), and the cases were later consolidated with an aiding-and-abetting-retaliation conviction (to which Wallace pleaded guilty and waived most appeals).
- At sentencing, Wallace received concurrent 180-month terms; he requested resentencing if the firearms conviction were overturned, but the Fifth Circuit affirmed denial of suppression and dismissed the resentencing request as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Wallace's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ping Order satisfies requirement that information be "relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation" | "Ongoing criminal investigation" requires new criminal activity; a probation-violation arrest warrant is not enough | Statutes were properly applied to locate a fugitive; Ping Orders were authorized and used to execute arrest warrant | Denied: Court did not reach merits because suppression is not an available statutory remedy; district court did not err |
| Whether suppression is an available remedy for statutory violations (pen-trap, state art. 18.21, SCA) | Suppression appropriate remedy for statutory or constitutional defects in obtaining E911 data | Statutes provide exclusive remedies; Congress/state limited judicial remedies and did not authorize suppression | Held: Suppression not available for violations of pen-trap statute, Texas art. 18.21, or SCA; exclusionary rule not applicable here |
| Whether obtaining E911 location data without probable-cause warrant violated Fourth Amendment | Accessing E911 constitutes a Fourth Amendment search that required a warrant; suppression warranted | Officers acted in objective good faith reliance on statutory authority and court orders; exclusionary rule should not apply | Held: Even assuming a search, good-faith exception (Leon/Krull) applies; suppression denied |
| Whether remand for resentencing on aiding-and-abetting conviction is required if firearm conviction vacated | Requested remand if firearms conviction overturned because armed-career-criminal status affected sentence | Government: no remand needed if suppression denial affirmed | Held: Appeal as to resentencing dismissed as moot after suppression denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Turner, 839 F.3d 429 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Hearn, 563 F.3d 95 (5th Cir.) (factual-review principles on suppression)
- United States v. Waldrop, 404 F.3d 365 (5th Cir.) (affirm on any record-supported rationale)
- United States v. Smith, 978 F.2d 171 (5th Cir.) (burden to prove Fourth Amendment violation by preponderance)
- United States v. German, 486 F.3d 849 (5th Cir.) (suppression not remedy for pen-trap statute violations)
- United States v. Guerrero, 768 F.3d 351 (5th Cir.) (suppression not available for SCA violations)
- United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (U.S.) (exclusionary rule and fruits of illegal searches)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (U.S.) (framework for assessing searches under Fourth Amendment)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S.) (reasonable expectation of privacy test)
- United States v. Allen, 625 F.3d 830 (5th Cir.) (exclusionary rule focus and good-faith exception rationale)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S.) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (U.S.) (objectively reasonable reliance on statute shields exclusion)
- United States v. Frazin, 780 F.2d 1461 (9th Cir.) (statutory remedies may be exclusive)