Presentation on theme: "United States of America V. Craig Forest and Herman Garner Argued December 5, 2003 and filed January 27, 2004."— Presentation transcript:
United States of America V. Craig Forest and Herman Garner Argued December 5, 2003 and filed January 27, 2004
Facts of the Case DEA agents identified Garner and Forest as drug traffickers. They obtained court authorization to intercept communications from Garner’s cell phone. On May 1, 2001 the court renewed the DEA’s authorization and also extended it to Forest’s cell phone. Also received authorization for disclose all subscriber information, toll records, and other relevant information By dialing the cell phone of Garner, agents were able to locate his general position.
Facts DEA agents conducted visual surveillance of both suspects. They lost visual contact and subsequently dialed Garner’s cell phone number and reestablished contact after obtaining Garner’s location. They resumed visual surveillance until they lost contact a second time. They relocated the suspects using cell phone data. The following day, the agents acted without an arrest warrant to apprehend the defendants
Argument Forest had no legitimate expectation of privacy as only Garner’s cell phone data was used. Garner argued that the cell-site data should be suppressed because his Fourth Amendment right was violated. Kyllo V. United States established that for a violation to be present society must recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Argument US. V. Knotts established that one has no expectation of privacy on public roads. Garner argued that his case is distinct from Knotts as visual surveillance was not enough to track his movements. The court ruled that Garner had no expectation of privacy because agents had the possibility of visually locating him.
Argument Garner then argued that he had an expectation of privacy in his Cell data. He stated that in Knotts the government owned the tracking device but did not own his cell phone. He also points out that his contract with Sprint does not authorize the disclosure of his cell-site data. Garner also made distinctions from US. V. Maryland where the court held that the defendant had no expectation of privacy in number that he dialed. Garner argues that since he did not dial his cell phone he still had an expectation of privacy.
Argument The court decided that Garner’s cell site data was just a proxy for his observable location. They found that the supreme courts ruling in Knotts to be the controlling factor. They found that Garner had no expectation of privacy as he travelled down public highways.
Ruling The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of both defendants.