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):<\/p>\n
Courts have followed Knotts<\/a> 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<\/a> 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).<\/p>\n
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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading