D.D.C.: Def’s IAC claim a Stingray was used was speculative at best; govt already had plenty from lawful sources

Even if a Stingray was used to get defendant’s information, which is speculative at best, the government lawfully used a host of other information gathering devices and orders to get the same information. Therefore, he wasn’t prejudiced. IAC claim denied. United States v. Burnett, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128559 (D.D.C. Aug. 1, 2018)*:

As the government points out, the Bonner Affidavit and the DEA investigation report from September 28, 2011, show exactly how “agents learned defendant’s identity by analyzing public records, McDuffie’s GPS tracking data, and telephone records.” Gov’t’s Opp’n at 19. Indeed, this Court, in considering pre-trial suppression motions, cited the various forms of evidence that led to the identification of McDuffie’s co-conspirators, including the defendant here, stating that the “statements and actions of McDuffie … in combination with cellular telephone calling records, agents’ visual surveillance, and GPS tracking of McDuffie’s vehicle, point directly to Mr. Burnett and the use of his residence at 1707 D Street, S.E., for narcotics trafficking.” Mem. and Order GPS Monitoring at 8-10. Even if a cell-site simulator (i.e., stingray device) had been used, that fact would not have changed the Court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress. See id. at 10 (“These facts, and the others set forth in the affidavit in support of the search warrant, clearly established probable cause justifying issuance of the warrant, even without use of the GPS tracking data from McDuffie’s cellular telephone.”). In other words, the defendant has not shown, and cannot show, any prejudice.

This entry was posted in Cell site simulators. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.