Page 22 - FMJournal_2017_FINAL

A SPECTATOR’S PRIMER ON

TIMOTHY CARPENTER,
Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES,
Respondent.

INTRODUCTION PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This is a hypothetical case based on an actual Petitioner Timothy Carpenter was charged with
case scheduled for argument during the Unit- six counts of aiding and abetting robberies of
ed States Supreme Court’s 2017 Term, Carpen- cellular telephone stores that affected inter-
ter v. United States, Docket No. 16-402. At state commerce, in violation of the Hobbs Act,
issue in the actual case and before the Mock and aiding and abetting the use or carriage of
Supreme Court is the government’s collection a firearm during a federal crime of violence. 18
of individuals’ historical cellphone site location U.S.C. Sections 924(c), 1951(a). During the in-
information from wireless carriers. vestigation of these robberies, the government

accessed Petitioner’s historical cellphone site
Under 18 U.S.C. Section 2703(d), the gov- location information pursuant to the Stored
ernment may, without a warrant, require the Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2703
disclosure of certain telecommunications re- et seq., which allows the government to access
cords, including historical cellphone site loca- records of this information held by phone com-
tion information, when there are “reasonable panies provided that “reasonable grounds”
grounds” to believe that such records are “rel- exist to believe that such records are “relevant
evant and material to an ongoing criminal in- and material to an ongoing criminal investiga-
vestigation.” Petitioner challenges the district tion.” Petitioner moved to suppress the cell-
court’s denial of his motion to exclude his cell- site evidence obtained by the government
phone data from the evidence at trial on the on Fourth Amendment grounds. The United
grounds that the Fourth Amendment requires States District Court for the Eastern District of
the government to obtain a search warrant be- Michigan denied Petitioner’s motion. United
fore collecting historical cellphone site location States v. Carpenter, No. 12-20218, 2013 WL
information. Petitioner contends that the gov- 6385838, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 6, 2013). The
ernment’s access of this cellphone information jury convicted Petitioner on all the Hobbs Act
from the phone companies that collect it is a counts and all but one of the firearms counts.
“search” that triggers Fourth Amendment pro-
tections. Petitioner appealed the district court’s denial
of his motion to suppress the cell-site evidence
Respondent counters that the government’s to the United States Court of Appeals for the
access of historical cellphone site location in- Sixth Circuit. Petitioner alleged that the Fourth
formation from third-party wireless carriers is Amendment’s warrant and probable cause re-
not a “search,” and that the government’s con- quirements apply to historical cellphone site
duct pursuant to the statute was constitutional.

14 FIRST MONDAY IN OCTOBER JOURNAL