Page 23 - FMJournal_2017_FINAL

location information because he had a sub- “obtains a warrant issued using the procedures
jective and objective reasonable expectation described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Pro-
of privacy in such information, and thus, the cedure.” Id.
Stored Communications Act’s “reasonable
grounds” standard is unconstitutional. The Pursuant to Section 2703(d), the government
Sixth Circuit court rejected Petitioner’s argu- applied for orders relating to toll records, call
ment and affirmed his conviction. Carpenter detail records, and historical cellphone site lo-
v. United States, 819 F.3d 880 (6th Cir. 2016). cation information (“CSLI”) transmitted to and
from specific phone numbers, including Peti-
Petitioner’s application for a writ of certiorari tioner’s, for the period from December 1, 2010
from the Sixth Circuit’s decision to the United to the present. Those orders stated that the
States Supreme Court was granted. Carpenter government had demonstrated to the court
v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 2211 (2017). that there was reasonable grounds to believe
that the information sought was relevant and
FACTUAL BACKGROUND material to providing evidence that Petitioner
had violated 18 U.S.C. Section 1951. The gov-
A. The Arrest, the Stored Communications Act, ernment’s application was granted and the re-
and the Court Orders cords were provided.

In April 2011, police arrested four men suspect- B. The Indictment and Trial
ed of committing a string of armed robberies
at Radio Shacks and T–Mobile stores in and The government obtained an indictment charg-
around Detroit. One of the men confessed that ing Petitioner with six counts of aiding and
the group had robbed nine different stores in abetting robberies of cellular telephone stores
Michigan and Ohio between December 2010 that affected interstate commerce, in violation
and March 2011. The robber who confessed of the Hobbs Act, and aiding and abetting the
provided the FBI with his own cellphone num- use or carriage of a firearm during a federal
ber and the numbers of other participants; the crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec-
FBI then reviewed his call records to identify tions 924(c), 1951(a). Before trial, Petitioner
additional numbers that he had called around moved to suppress the government’s CSLI evi-
the time of the robberies. One of these num- dence on Fourth Amendment grounds, argu-
bers was that of Timothy Carpenter: (313) 412- ing that the records could be seized only with
6845. a warrant supported by probable cause. The
district court denied the motion. United States
On May 2, 2011, and again on June 7, 2011, v. Carpenter, No. 12-20218, 2013 WL 6385838,
the government applied for and obtained at *1 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 6, 2013).
court orders under the Stored Communications
Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2703. The Stored Com- At trial, FBI agent Christopher Hess offered ex-
munications Act requires a telephone service pert testimony regarding the cell-site data pro-
provider to give the government non-content vided by Petitioner’s wireless carrier (“phone
subscriber records in its possession if a judge company”). Hess explained that cellphones
finds “specific and articulable facts showing work by establishing a radio connection with
that there are reasonable grounds to believe” nearby cell towers (or “cell sites”); that phones
that the records “are relevant and material to are constantly searching for the strongest sig-
an ongoing criminal investigation. 18 U.S.C. nal from those towers; and that individual tow-
Section 2703(c), (d). The statute also provides ers project different signals in each direction
access to such records when the government or “sector,” so that a cellphone located on the

FIRST MONDAY IN OCTOBER JOURNAL 15