W.D.Pa.: Def couldn’t show standing for CSLI on this phone, and, even if he could, he’d lose

Reiterating a prior opinion in the case, the defendant did not show standing to challenge CSLI on a phone associated with him, and even if he could, he’d lose on the merits (surveying the cases). United States v. Woodley, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116170 (W.D.Pa. September 1, 2015):

1. Defendant lacks standing to challenge the acquisition of data location information transmitted from the cell phone associated with him

As the court previously ruled in the July 2014 Opinion, defendant has not established that he has standing to challenge the data location information associated with the cellular telephone in question. Defendant has not proffered any evidence that connects him to the cell phone as the owner, subscriber or authorized user, thus he has not shown that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the records associated with the cell phone, including data location information transmitted from it.6 Even if defendant could do so, numerous federal courts have held that one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in location data transmitted from a cell phone. See United States v. Skinner, 690 F.3d 772, 777 (6th Cir. 2012) (holding that the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in location data broadcast from his cell phone); In re Application of the United States of America for an Order for Authorization to Obtain Location Data Concerning an AT&T Cellular Tel., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56241, 2015 WL 1842761, at *6 (N.D. Miss. Mar. 30, 2015) (holding that suspects did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in location data transmitted from their cell phones); United States v. Lang, 78 F. Supp. 3d 830, 2015 WL 327338, at *4 (N.D. III. 2015) (an individual does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in historical cell site information and thus the protections of the Fourth Amendment do not apply); In re Smartphone Geolocation Data Application, 977 F.Supp.2d 129, 147 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (holding that cell phone users who fail to turn off their devices do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding prospective geolocation data and such expectation would not be reasonable in any event); United States v. Barrera-Barron, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108410, 2013 WL 3989182, at *4 (D. Kan. Aug. 1, 2013) (the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the GPS data from the cell phone that was used to track his whereabouts, thus he lacked standing to contest the use of that data).