W.D.Mo.: Realtime cell tracking information can be obtained with Title III wiretap

A Title III warrant also included a request for realtime geolocation information, and it complied with Rule 41. United States v. Piggie, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119718 (W.D.Mo. Aug. 16, 2016):

In the present case, the procedures for a Rule 41 geolocation warrant were followed by the government and the issuing court and as a result there was no violation of Piggie’s rights.3 For example, the acquisition of the information began within 10 days of the order and did not last longer than the permissible 30-day period. A search warrant return for the information was presented to the issuing judge within ten days following the cessation of the order. And, the required notification was delayed and made pursuant to the requirements of FED. R. CRIM. P. 41(f)(2)(C).

3. In Turner, the court detailed Rule 41’s procedural requirements for a combination order for a wiretap and geolocation information warrant, including: (1) identification of the person or property to be tracked; (2) designation of the magistrate judge to whom the warrant must be returned; (3) establishment of a reasonable timeframe for the installation and use of the tracking device; and (4) provide for notification or delay of notification of the order. Turner, 781 F.3d at 385-86.

This entry was posted in Cell site location information. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.