Page 76 - 2019 A Police Officers Guide

Even though Carpenter dealt with historical CSLI, not real-time location information, we believe
that the Court’s reasoning in Carpenter applies to both kinds of records.
Whether a particular government action constitutes a “16 search” or “seizure” does not turn on
the content of the CSLI records; it turns on whether the government searched or seized “enough”
information that it violated a legitimate expectation of privacy. There is no bright-line rule for
determining how long police must track a person’s cell phone in real time before it violates a
person’s legitimate expectation of privacy in those records. Whether a person has a recognized
expectation of privacy in real-time CSLI records must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Here,
Appellant did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in his physical movements or his
location as reflected in the less than three hours of real-time CSLI records accessed by police by
pinging his phone less than five times. Five 18 justices on the United States Supreme Court have
supported the idea that longer-term surveillance might infringe on a person’s legitimate
expectation of privacy if the location records reveal the “‘privacies of [his] life,’” but this is not
that case.
Having overruled Appellant’s grounds for review, we affirm the judgment of the court of
appeals.

th
Sims v. State, No. PD-0941-17, Tex. Crim. App., Jan. 16 , 2019.
************************************************************

CONSENT SEARCH OF VEHICLE

Following a tip from a confidential source, Arturo Sarli was arrested and convicted for
possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. He challenges his conviction under the
Fourth and Sixth Amendments. We unanimously deny Sarli’s Fourth Amendment claim, on the
ground that he consented to the search of his vehicle.
th
(Ed. note: The discussion of the 6 Amendment confrontation claim arising from informant
statements introduced at trial is omitted.)

Moreover, Sarli’s defense at trial wasn’t that he didn’t do it—it was that he didn’t know what he
was doing. Sarli admitted he agreed to be paid to transport a box of cat litter from a Walmart
parking lot to a restaurant parking lot. He simply denied knowing that the cat litter contained
methamphetamine. Naturally, the prosecution ridiculed Sarli’s dubious story as implausible in
the extreme (and as evidence of guilt, as our precedents permit). The officers at the scene also
testified that, once they found the drugs, Sarli cried about not wanting to go to prison, and
protested his wife’s innocence.

In June 2014, a confidential source told Detective Steven Contreras of the San Antonio Police
Department that a man named Arturo was using a white Avalanche pickup truck to transport
methamphetamine around San Antonio. About a month later, that same confidential source told
Detective Contreras that Arturo would be transporting about two kilograms of methamphetamine
that very day, to the parking lot of Bill Miller’s restaurant in San Antonio.

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 68 2019 Edition