The government obtained defendant’s cell phone from somebody else using it while he was in jail, and they sought a search warrant which was denied. Later they searched the phone and claimed defendant had no standing. The court finds defendant did have standing; however, he loses because the possessor of the phone had complete access and the ability to consent, which she did. United States v. Perry, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163218 (E.D. Va. Aug. 19, 2019), adopted, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162516 (E.D. Va. Sept. 23, 2019). The Katz-Jones dichotomy is worth reading:
The government first contends that Defendant lacked a legitimate privacy interest in the HTC phone, thus removing this matter entirely from the ambit of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Davis, 690 F.3d 226, 241 (4th Cir. 2012) (“When there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, the Fourth Amendment is not implicated.”). Defendant asserts two theories to support his privacy interest. The first is based on the Katz “reasonable expectation of privacy” test as described above. He describes the other as based on “the common-law trespassory test,” as applied in Jones. Def.’s Second Mot. Suppress 5-6 (quoting United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 409 (2012)).
The Jones test is a poor fit here. In Jones, government agents attached a GPS tracking device to the underside of the petitioner’s vehicle while it was in a public parking lot and used it to monitor the vehicles movements for 28 days. 565 U.S. at 403. The Court held that such actions constituted a Fourth Amendment “search,” notwithstanding the petitioner’s lack of “reasonable expectation of privacy” in his publicly visible location. Id. at 404, 406. Jones thus reiterates the Fourth Amendment’s applicability when the government “physically occupie[s] private property for the purpose of obtaining information.” Id. at 404.
Courts have largely rejected efforts to expand the trespassory test applied in Jones, mostly because the Katz test covers a greater variety of contexts. Indeed, the Supreme Court devised the reasonable expectation of privacy test in Katz largely because the narrow trespassory test failed to encompass all those instances in which people expect to be free from government intrusion. See Katz, 389 U.S. at 351 (“[T]he Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.”); see also Jones, 565 U.S. at 404-09 (describing Katz as a deviation that added to, rather than supplanted, the historical “property-based approach” to the Fourth Amendment). The two tests are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but neither are they strict alternatives available in all cases. See Davis, 690 F.3d at 241 n.23 (limiting applicability of Jones to cases involving physical intrusion on private property).
Stretching Jones is ultimately unnecessary, as this Report concludes Defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy under the Katz test. The Supreme Court has acknowledged the substantial privacy implications of ubiquitous cell phone usage today. …
by John Wesley Hall
Criminal Defense Lawyer and
Search and seizure law consultant
Little Rock, Arkansas
Contact: forhall @ aol.com / The Book www.johnwesleyhall.com
"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't." —Me
"Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well." –Josh Billings (pseudonym of Henry Wheeler Shaw), Josh Billings on Ice, and Other Things (1868) (erroneously attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson, among others)
“I am still learning.” —Domenico Giuntalodi (but misattributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (common phrase throughout 1500's)).
"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government."
—Shemaya, in the Thalmud
"It is a pleasant world we live in, sir, a very pleasant world. There are bad people in it, Mr. Richard, but if there were no bad people, there would be no good lawyers."
—Charles Dickens, “The Old Curiosity Shop ... With a Frontispiece. From a Painting by Geo. Cattermole, Etc.” 255 (1848)
"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced."
—Williams
v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold,
J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).
"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws,
or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence." —Mapp
v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).
"Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment."
—Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).
"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that
bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the
police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater
than it is today."
— Terry
v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their
property."
—Entick
v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)
"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have
frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And
so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his
case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth
Amendment."
—United
States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)
"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated
here, has not–to put it mildly–run smooth."
—Chapman
v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the
bottom of a turntable."
—Arizona
v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)
"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly
exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth
Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in
an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."
—Katz
v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
“Experience should teach us to be most on guard to
protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born
to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded
rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men
of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
—United
States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
“Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted
intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by
government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose
it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.”
—United
States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)
"You can't always get what you want /
But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need."
—Mick Jagger & Keith Richards
"In Germany, they first came for the communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for
the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came
for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration
camp]
“You know, most men would get discouraged by
now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!”
---Pepé Le Pew
"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers,
is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which
reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that
those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being
judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting
out crime."
—Johnson
v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)