E.D.N.C.: No PC for GPS information from any phone that connected to the target phone; and no GFE

“Because the first pen order allowed officers to retrieve GPS location information about any phone which contacted the target phones, and nothing in the affidavit shows the relation between those contacting phones and the underlying criminal activity, the magistrate judge is correct in concluding that the pen orders lack the requisite particularity under the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Hurwitz, 459 F.3d 463 (4th Cir. 2006) (‘The Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant be no broader than the probable cause on which it is based.’) (internal quotations omitted).” Moreover, the good faith exception also does not apply. Just because nobody else made the same challenge before in this court doesn’t show good faith. The probable cause showing was facially deficient. “Further, because the pen order permitted the collection of GPS tracking data about any phone which contacted the target phones, the pen order was also so ‘facially deficient’ that the officers could not ‘reasonably presume it to be valid.’ Bynum, 293 F.3d at 195. Where the M&R’s analysis on this point is thorough and correct, it will not be disturbed.” United States v. Sykes, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161748 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 22, 2016).