N.D.Fla.: No standing against tracking a stolen cell phone

Defendant claimed a Brady violation for failure to disclose a Stingray device was used to track the victim’s cell phone in his possession. It’s not. Moreover, defendant doesn’t even have standing in a stolen cell phone. Bass v. Dixon, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233056 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2023), adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7335 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2024):

Here, Petitioner claims the prosecution violated Brady by failing to disclose prior to trial that investigators used a Stingray device to help locate the victim’s cell phone. But the information obtained by the Stingray device was not exculpatory. The information was inculpatory—it helped lead police to the victim’s phone, which was an important piece of evidence for the prosecution. Indeed, Petitioner’s own argument demonstrates the inculpatory nature of the Stingray information. Petitioner is not arguing that the Stingray information was favorable to him. He is not claiming that the verdict would have been different had the jury heard about the Stingray information. Petitioner is actually arguing the opposite. His argument is that the Stingray information should have been excluded under the Fourth Amendment, and that he was denied the opportunity to seek such exclusion by its late disclosure. Put another way, Petitioner is arguing that the Stingray information should have been kept out of the jury room.