## Facts

- Aaron Graham and Eric Jordan were prosecuted for six armed robberies in Baltimore, Maryland, committed over several weeks in early 2011.
- Police arrested the defendants based on eyewitness evidence and seized two cell phones connected to the defendants’ known numbers.
- Investigators obtained historical cell-site location information (CSLI) from the carrier (Sprint/Nextel) through court orders under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) (Stored Communications Act), not through a probable-cause warrant.
- The government obtained 221 days of historical CSLI across seven months, totaling over 28,000 location data points per defendant.
- CSLI reflected which cell tower carried a phone’s communications, allowing the government to infer a phone’s location over time.
- At trial, the government used the CSLI to place the defendants near or at most robbery locations at relevant times.
- The defendants moved to suppress the CSLI on Fourth Amendment grounds; the district court denied suppression, reasoning (1) no reasonable expectation of privacy under the third-party doctrine and (2) alternatively, good-faith reliance on the statutory process.
- A jury convicted the defendants of multiple offenses, including Hobbs Act robbery and firearm crimes, and the defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the government’s acquisition of 221 days of historical CSLI via § 2703(d) orders, without a probable-cause warrant, was a Fourth Amendment “search.”
2. If it was a search, whether the exclusionary rule required suppression or whether the good-faith exception applied due to reliance on § 2703(d) orders.

## Decision

- The court held that obtaining and inspecting 221 days of historical CSLI constituted a Fourth Amendment search and generally required a warrant supported by probable cause.
- The court rejected treating long-term CSLI as categorically exempt under the third-party doctrine, distinguishing automatic location record generation from voluntary disclosure of discrete business records.
- The court concluded that § 2703(d)’s “relevant and material” standard was lower than probable cause and did not satisfy the warrant requirement for the long-term CSLI obtained.
- The court nonetheless affirmed the convictions because officers obtained the CSLI through judicially authorized § 2703(d) orders and acted in good-faith reliance on that statutory process and the orders.

## Legal Principles

- Aggregated, long-term historical CSLI can reveal a detailed record of a person’s movements and associations; acquisition of such data is a Fourth Amendment search.
- The third-party doctrine does not automatically eliminate Fourth Amendment protection for long-term CSLI generated as a routine byproduct of carrying and using a cell phone.
- When the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant, statutory authorization using a standard below probable cause is insufficient to replace the warrant requirement for that category of surveillance.
- Suppression is not required when law enforcement reasonably relies in good faith on a statute and court orders authorizing the acquisition, absent controlling authority clearly forbidding the practice at the time.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit panel concluded that collecting 221 days of historical CSLI without a probable-cause warrant was a Fourth Amendment search, but it declined to suppress the evidence and affirmed the convictions because officers relied in good faith on § 2703(d) orders issued by a court.


United States v. Graham, 796 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2015)