S.D.N.Y.: No REP in location of a cell phone in a tracking order

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a cell phone’s location under a tracking order. United States v. Navas, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37464 (S.D. N.Y. March 19, 2009):

Courts have followed Knotts in addressing cell site data and hold that a defendant has no legitimate expectation of privacy in such data. See Forest, 355 F.3d at 951 (“[C]ell-site data is simply a proxy for [defendant’s] visually observable location.”); see also In re Cell Site Location Application, 460 F. Supp. 2d at 462 (noting that the government could violate Karo by using cell site information to surveil a target in a private home that could not be observed from public spaces); In re the Matter of the Application of the United States of America for an Order Directing a Provider of Electronic Communication Service to Disclose Records to the Government, 534 F. Supp. 2d 585, 613 (W.D. Pa. 2008) (“without a warrant based on probable cause the Government may use a tracking device to ascertain an individual’s location on a public highway but not in a private home ….”). Courts have also determined that an individual does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in items that are not in the individual’s name, i.e., where the defendant is not the cell phone’s subscriber. Suarez-Blanca, 2008 WL 4200156, at *6-7; United States v. Skinner. No. 3:07-CR-100 (HBG), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38128, 2007 WL 1556596, at *17 (E.D. Tenn. May 24, 2007).

Navas did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the cell phone. First, the cell phone was only utilized on public thoroughfares en route from California to New York; there is no indication that law enforcement ever surveilled Navas, or any of the Defendants, in a private residence. Second, Navas was not a subscriber to the phone. Finally, if Navas intended to keep the cell phone’s location private, he simply could have turned it off. See Aral-Estrada, 2006 WL 3197181, at *13. Accordingly, Navas did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the cell phone’s transmissions and his motion to suppress based on information obtained under the Cell Site Order is denied.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.