W.D.Pa.: PC for CSLI shown

Explaining how probable cause was shown for CSLI is United States v. Maragh, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195812 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 31, 2026),* and, of course, the good faith exception would apply, too:

For instance, in considering whether a search warrant permitting the Government to obtain location data from a defendant’s cell phone was supported by probable cause, a sister court contemplated: “[m]ust the affidavit show only a fair probability that the phone’s data ‘will aid in a particular’ investigation and disclose evidence of criminal activity,” or, more stringently, “must it show, say, a fair probability that the phone itself is being used ‘in connection with criminal activity?'” Rashwan, 684 F. Supp. 3d at 355 (quoting United States v. Sheckles, 996 F.3d 330, 338 (6th Cir. 2021)). In analyzing the matter, the Rashwan court observed that “an affidavit may establish ‘a fair probability that … evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place’ through not only ‘direct evidence linking the crime with the place to be searched,’ but also inferences based on ‘the type of crime, the nature of the items sought, the suspect’s opportunity for concealment and … where a criminal might hide [evidence].'” Id. at 356 (quoting Stearn, 597 F.3d at 554). In light of this authority, the court reasoned that “a cell phone’s nexus to criminal activity need not arise solely as an instrument that facilitates the charged crime,” and thus law enforcement may search a phone “not only if it is a vehicle for criminal activity, but also if there exists a fair probability that it contains evidence of a crime – such as location data placing an individual at a [particular location].” Id.

In arguing that the warrants to obtain CSLI were not supported by probable cause, Defendant primarily contends that the Affidavits lacked specific information that he actually used # 1781, # 3645, and # 8906. (See Docket No. 2188 at 3, 5, 6, 7, 8). Nonetheless, he cites no authority for his assertion that the Affidavits were required to contain such information in order to establish probable cause to acquire the CSLI for those telephones. Contrary to Defendant’s position, probable cause exists for issuance of a warrant to obtain CSLI if there exists a fair probability that the particular telephone contains evidence of a crime — such as location data that would lead to further evidence of criminal activity. See Rashwan, 684 F. Supp. 3d at 356. Each of the Affidavits summarized above contains more than ample information to conclude that a fair probability existed that the CSLI for # 1781, # 3645, and # 8906 would lead to further evidence of drug trafficking activity — such as the location of the user of the telephone in question (who had, inter alia, utilized the referenced telephones to track parcels containing significant distribution quantities of controlled substances), and to identify other co-conspirators who supplied and distributed the controlled substances.

Based on each Affidavit, the reviewing Magistrate Judge issued a warrant to obtain the CSLI for # 1781, # 3645, and # 8906. Upon review, this Court finds that the information contained in the “four corners” of the Affidavits as detailed above was sufficient for each Magistrate Judge to have determined that there was a fair probability that the CSLI for the referenced telephones would disclose evidence of drug trafficking activity. Consequently, the Court finds that each Magistrate Judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed for issuance of the warrants to obtain CSLI for the telephones ending in # 1781, # 3645, and # 8906.