Call us now:
Cell Phone Tracking – What Is It?
A recent case from the Fourth DCA is insightful for learning about how CSLI devices are used by law enforcement agencies and the prosecution, and how the doctrine of inevitable discovery is applied to sometimes undermine Constitutional violations. To start, a cell phone’s location, whether stationary or moving, can be tracked through cell site location information (CSLI) or global positioning system (GPS) data. CSLI, which is also referred to as cell phone location tracking, or cell phone tracking, refers to information cell phones convey to nearby cell towers. You may not know it, but tracking your cell location is an invasion of your privacy, and you are entitled to the protections of the 4th Amendment in regards to your CSLI.
In this case, the trial court ruled that while the use of CSLI (Cell Site Location Information) was a Fourth Amendment violation, the evidence was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. CSLI information is typically gathered with a cell site simulator also known as a triggerfish or stingray – with this technology the government can sometimes illegally locate and track cell phones)
To set the Stage for how the Court discussed the issue and came to its conclusion, the facts are as follows. The appellant and a co-defendant were charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder after allegedly luring victims under the pretext of a firearm sale, resulting in a shooting that killed one passenger and injured another. Law enforcement linked the appellant to the incident via the victim’s phone records, which showed calls to a number associated with the appellant, and from there used traditional methods to locate the Defendant as well (info from phone service provider and records check).
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Carpenter v. United States established that individuals maintain a legitimate expectation of privacy regarding their cell site location information (CSLI), making its acquisition a “search” requiring a warrant based on probable cause. Florida courts have echoed this sentiment, underscoring the necessity of adhering to these constitutional protections. “Whether the Government employs its own surveillance technology . . . or leverages the technology of a wireless carrier, we hold that an individual maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements as captured through CSLI.” Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296, 309-10 (2018).
In the case discussed, law enforcement conducted a warrantless search using CSLI, which violated the appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights. However, the trial court invoked the inevitable discovery doctrine, which allows evidence obtained via unconstitutional means to be admitted if it would have been found through lawful channels anyway.
The court determined that law enforcement had already gathered sufficient evidence—such as phone records and subscriber information—to locate the appellant before using the CSLI. This means that, despite the initial misconduct, the evidence would have inevitably come to light through legal investigation.
Ultimately, the court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, validating the application of the inevitable discovery doctrine in this case. For defense attorneys, this highlights the importance of understanding both the legal standards surrounding evidence suppression and the implications of the inevitable discovery doctrine when challenging unlawful police procedures. This case underscores the complexities surrounding Fourth Amendment rights in the context of technological evidence, law enforcement procedures, and cell phone tracking.