You are on page 1of 11

Case 1:05-cr-00386-ESH Document 606

Filed 03/29/12 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES v. ANTOINE JONES, Defendant. : : : : : : :

Case No. 05-CR-386(1) (ESH) Trial: 5/7/12

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO SUPPRESS CELL SITE DATA AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF Defendant Antoine Jones (Jones), by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this Honorable Court pursuant to Federal Criminal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12, 41, and 47, and the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, to suppress all cell phone records obtained without a warrant and a showing of probable cause. In support thereof counsel states the following: FACTS 1. Mr. Jones has been charged in a Superseding Indictment with Conspiracy

to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Five Kilograms or More of Cocaine and Fifty Grams or More of Cocaine Base. The government alleges that Mr. Jones was part of a narcotics conspiracy from at least 2003 until October 24, 2005, which spanned from the District of Columbia, Maryland, Texas, North Carolina and elsewhere. In particular, the government alleges that Jones was the primary supplier of cocaine to members of the organization in the District of Columbia and Maryland. 2. On June 20, 2005, the government filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

2703(c)(1)(B) and 2703(d) an Application for Pen Register, Caller Identification Device,

Case 1:05-cr-00386-ESH Document 606

Filed 03/29/12 Page 2 of 11

Subscriber and Cell Site Information (the June 20 Application). (See Exh. 1 June 20, 2005 Application), seeking cell site information for cellular telephone number 202-538-3946. In relevant part, the government stated:

Case 1:05-cr-00386-ESH Document 606

Filed 03/29/12 Page 3 of 11

Although the government also sought authorization for a pen register, trap and trace and caller identification device on (202) 538-3946, this motion pertains to the cell site evidence. 3. Magistrate Judge Facciola granted the Application the same day

authorizing the disclosure of the requested material for a period of 60 days. On August 1, 2005, the government sought an extension (the August 1 Extension Application) of the original Order (See Exh. 2 August 1 Extension). This time, Magistrate Judge Kay granted the Extention Application for another 60 days. On September 19, 2005, the government once again sought an Order, this time for cellular telephone number 202-746-0470. (the September 19

Case 1:05-cr-00386-ESH Document 606

Filed 03/29/12 Page 4 of 11

Amended Application). (See Exh. 3 September 19 Amended Application). Magistrate Facciola granted that request the same day. In total, the government sought cell site date for approximately four months. 4. The government has produced material obtained through court orders for

the relevant cellular telephone numbers. Upon information and belief, now that the illegally obtained GPS data cannot be used as evidence in this case, the government will seek to introduce cell site data in its place in an attempt to demonstrate Mr. Jones movements and whereabouts during relevant times. Mr. Jones submits that the government obtained the cell site data in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and therefore it must be suppressed. ARGUMENT 5. The Stored Communications Act permits the government to obtain an

order seeking the cell- site-location records at issue here. See 18 U.S.C. 2703(c)(1), (d); see also In the Matter of an Application of the United States for an Order Authorizing the Use of Two Pen Register and Trap and Trace Devices, 632 F.Supp.2d 202 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). The relevant statutory provision states, A governmental entity may require a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service to disclose a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications) only when the governmental entity ... obtains a court order for such disclosure under subsection (d) of this section. 18 U.S.C. 2703(c)(1)(B). Such an order may be issued by any court that is a court of competent jurisdiction and shall issue only if the governmental entity offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information

Case 1:05-cr-00386-ESH Document 606

Filed 03/29/12 Page 5 of 11

sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation. 18 U.S.C. 2703(d) (emphasis added). This showing is lower than the probable cause standard required for a search warrant. See United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544, 566 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967)). 6. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that [t]he right of the people to be

secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no War- rants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and par- ticularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. U.S. Const. amend. IV. A search conducted without a warrant is per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendmentsubject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. Maynard, 615 F.3d at 566 (quoting Katz, 389 U.S. at 357. 7. Whether Government action constitutes a search depends upon whether

the person invoking its protection can claim a justifiable, a reasonable, or a legitimate expectation of privacy that has been invaded by government action. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740 (1979). The Supreme Court in Katz v. United States set forth a two part standard for when a Fourth Amendment search has occurred: (1) the individual has manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the thing searched; and (2) society is willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 33 (2001). The first element addresses whether the individual's conduct has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy ... [which is demonstrated by] whether ... the individual has shown that he seeks to preserve something as private. United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 281 (1983) (citations and quotation marks omitted). The second element looks to whether the individual's expectation, viewed objectively, is justifiable under the circumstance. Id. (citations and punctuation

Case 1:05-cr-00386-ESH Document 606

Filed 03/29/12 Page 6 of 11

omitted). 8. Electronic surveillance of an individuals location as he travels in public

has traditionally not been construed as a Fourth Amendment search, although electronic surveillance of his location within his home has been. See Knotts, 460 U.S. at 28085; United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705, 71318 (1984). However, the Supreme Court recently decided in United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012), that electronic tracking (GPS) of Mr. Jones over an extended period of time (30 days) was a search and seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, in United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert. granted, United States v. Jones, 131 S.Ct. 3064 (2011), the District of Columbia Circuit found that while the defendant in Katz did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy over his location while traveling from one place to another, Mr. Jones did have a reasonable expectation of privacy over the totality of his movements over the course of a month. The court reasoned that the totality of ones movements over an extended time period is not actually exposed to the public because the likelihood a stranger would observe all those movements is not just remote, it is essentially nil. Maynard, 615 F.3d at 560. The court concluded that people have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the totality of their movements over an extended period because an individual's privacy interests in the totality of his movements far exceeds any privacy interest in a single public trip from one place to another. Id. 9. In this case, the government seeks to do with cell site data what it cannot

do with the suppressed GPS data. It sought an order for cell site data spanning from June 2005 to October 2005, a period of approximately four months. The cell site location records sought here captures enough of the users location information for a long enough time period significantly longer than the four weeks in Maynardto depict a sufficiently detailed and

Case 1:05-cr-00386-ESH Document 606

Filed 03/29/12 Page 7 of 11

intimate picture of his movements to trigger the same constitutional concerns as the GPS data in Maynard. In the Matter of an Application for an Order Authorizing the Release of Historical Cell Site Information, 809 F. Supp.2d 113, 119 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (denying application; holding that order required a search warrant based on probable cause). See also In re The Application of the United States for an Order Directing a Provider of Elec. Commcn Serv. to Disclose Records to the Govt, 534 F. Supp.2d 585, 588 (W.D. Pa. 2008) (denying application; specific and articulable facts not sufficient); In the Matter of an Application of the United States for an Order (1) Authorizing the Use of a Pen Register and a Trap and Trace Device and (2) Authorizing Release of Subscriber Information and/or Cell Site Information, 384 F. Supp.2d 562 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (denying application); In the Matter of the Application of the United States of America for an Order Authorizing the Release of Prospective Cell Site Information, 407 F. Supp.2d 134 (D.D.C. 2006) (Facciola, M.J.) (denying application; requiring showing of probable cause. But see United States v. Graham, 2012 WL 691531 (D. MD 2012) (denying motion to suppress cell site data; probable cause not required). 10. Furthermore, in its various applications, the government cites as the

specific and articulable facts showing that there is reasonable grounds to believe that the cell site information regarding (202) 538-3946 will be relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation:

Case 1:05-cr-00386-ESH Document 606

Filed 03/29/12 Page 8 of 11

(Exh. 1). Even under the lower standard in the text of the statute, the government has utterly failed to state any specific and articulable facts. Rather, it states boilerplate language applicable to any investigation. In fact, the government does state any facts pertaining to the investigation of Mr. Jones and never even mentions him. 11. The government has seized evidence without probable cause that it now

seeks to admit at trial. The government bears the burden of establishing probable cause for the seizure of evidence without a warrant. See United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 432 n.5

Case 1:05-cr-00386-ESH Document 606

Filed 03/29/12 Page 9 of 11

(1976) (Powell, J., concurring) (emphasizing the Supreme Court's long-standing position that [a warrantless] arrest should receive careful judicial scrutiny if challenged); Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 102 (1959) (probable cause requirement strictly enforced). It is settled law that all fruits of an illegal search and seizure must be suppressed. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 483 (1963) (all evidence come at by the exploitation of that illegality must be suppressed). 12. Mr. Jones had a constitutionally protected expectation of privacy in the

evidence seized.1 The seizure of this evidence was illegal and must be suppressed. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons and any others that may become apparent to the Court, Mr. Jones respectfully requests that this Motion be GRANTED. Dated: Washington, DC March 29, 2012 Respectfully submitted, BALAREZO LAW /s/ By: ________________________________________ A. Eduardo Balarezo, Esq. D.C. Bar # 462659 400 Fifth Street, NW; Suite 300 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 639-0999 Counsel for Antoine Jones

Counsel understands that there is pending proposed legislation in both the Senate and House that would require a warrant before tracking a cellphone's location. See, e.g., The Electronic Communications Privacy Act: Promoting Security and Protecting Privacy in the Digital Age: Hearing Before the S. Judiciary Comm., 111th Cong. (2010); ECPA Reform and the Revolution in Location Based Technologies and Services: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 111th Cong. (2010); The Collection and Use of Location Information for Commercial Purposes: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection and the Subcomm. on Commc'ns, Tech., and the Internet of the H. Comm. on Energy & Commerce, 111th Cong. (2010).

Case 1:05-cr-00386-ESH Document 606

Filed 03/29/12 Page 10 of 11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 29th day of March 2012, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants Motion to Suppress Cell Site Data and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof to be delivered to the parties in this matter via Electronic Case Filing (ECF). /s/ ______________________________ A. Eduardo Balarezo, Esq.

10

Case 1:05-cr-00386-ESH Document 606

Filed 03/29/12 Page 11 of 11

11

You might also like