D.N.J.: No REP in a burner phone def didn’t claim he used and wasn’t subscribed to anybody

This defendant has no reasonable expectation of privacy in somebody else’s cell phone or the records of its use. He never used it or claimed any interest in it. He also lacks any standing in an unsubscribed burner phone. The toll billing records were correctly obtained pursuant to § 2703(d). “Necessity” is an issue in a wiretap warrant, but it’s not in search warrants. “As an initial matter, Gatson’s claim that the affidavits underpinning the two search warrants at issue lacked ‘necessity’ is meritless on its face. While there is a necessity component when securing a Title III wiretap, a showing of necessity is not required to obtain a search warrant. And as explained below, Gatson’s other grounds for suppression also fail.” “Gatson’s request for an evidentiary hearing is denied, because he has not identified any issues of fact material to his motion.” United States v. Gatson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173588 (D.N.J. December 15, 2014).

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.