On Point: 4. Cell phones

State v. Ryan H. Tentoni, 2015 WI App 77; case activity (including briefs)

Tentoni does not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages delivered to another person’s phone and therefore can’t seek to suppress the text messages and other subsequently obtained phone records as fruit of the government’s illegal search of the phone.

State v. Bobby L. Tate, 2014 WI 89, 7/24/14, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Roggensack; case activity

State v. Nicolas Subdiaz-Osorio, 2014 WI 87, 7/24/14, affirming an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; lead opinion by Justice Prosser; case activity

In two decisions consisting of 8 separate opinions spread out across almost 200 pages, the supreme court is unable to muster a majority on the central issue presented: Whether cell phone location tracking is a search under the Fourth Amendment. Instead, in both cases a majority assumes without deciding that cell phone tracking is a search and then affirms the convictions, although on different grounds. If you’re looking only for the holdings, here they are: In Tate, a majority holds that the circuit court’s “order” that a cell phone service provide information about the cell phone location was reasonable because it met the requirements for a search warrant. In Subdiaz-Osorio, a majority holds that the warrantless acquisition of the cell phone location data was supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances. If you’re looking for more information, read on.

Riley v. California, USSC No. 13-132 (together with United States v. Wurie, USSC No. 13-212), 2014 WL 2864483 (June 25, 2014), reversing People v. Riley, No. D059840 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2013) (unpublished) (and affirming United States v. Wurie, 728 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013)); Scotusblog case page (which includes links to briefs and commentary) and symposium page (additional opinion commentary)

David L. Riley v. California, USSC 13-132

Question presented:

Whether evidence admitted at petitioner’s trial was obtained in a search of petitioner’s cell phone that violated petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Lower court opinion: People v. Riley, No. D059840 (Cal. App. 4th Dist., Feb. 8, 2013) (unpublished)

Docket

Scotusblog page

United States v. Brima Wurie,

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (from the Petition for Review)

Should this Court accept review to examine when law enforcement can electronically track a cell phone in order to locate the phone’s user?

More specifically, should this Court review a) whether obtaining a cell phone’s location constitutes a “search” within the meaning of the 4th Amendment, b) if so,

Review of per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (from the Petition for Review):

• 1. Without obtaining a warrant, police tracked Subdiaz-Osorio’s location through the signal transmitted from his cell phone. Did the trial court err in denying his motion to suppress this evidence?

• 2. Did the court of appeals in deciding that the evidence that came from the illegal search was harmless?

State v. Bobby L. Tate, 2012AP336-CR, District 1, 12/27/12;  court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 6/12/13; case activity

Order allowing police to track the current location of cell phone upheld, rejecting Tate’s argument that it constituted an illegal search warrant:

¶8        The heart of Tate’s argument on appeal is that the order authorizing the tracking of Tate’s phone to find its location was invalid under Wis.