This defendant has no reasonable expectation of privacy in somebody else\u2019s cell phone or the records of its use. He never used it or claimed any interest in it. He also lacks any standing in an unsubscribed burner phone. The toll billing records were correctly obtained pursuant to \u00a7 2703(d). \u201cNecessity\u201d is an issue in a wiretap warrant, but it\u2019s not in search warrants. \u201cAs an initial matter, Gatson’s claim that the affidavits underpinning the two search warrants at issue lacked \u2018necessity\u2019 is meritless on its face. While there is a necessity component when securing a Title III wiretap, a showing of necessity is not required to obtain a search warrant. And as explained below, Gatson’s other grounds for suppression also fail.\u201d \u201cGatson’s request for an evidentiary hearing is denied, because he has not identified any issues of fact material to his motion.\u201d United States v. Gatson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173588 (D.N.J. December 15, 2014).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This defendant has no reasonable expectation of privacy in somebody else\u2019s cell phone or the records of its use. He never used it or claimed any interest in it. He also lacks any standing in an unsubscribed burner phone. The … Continue reading