Motion to suppress; Fourth Amendment; Reasonable expectation of privacy in real-time cell-phone GPS data; Carpenter v United States; Expiration of search warrant; Meaning of “service”; Probation search condition; Good-faith exception; People v Goldston; People v DeRousse

The court held that law enforcement violated defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights by continuing to use his real-time cell-phone GPS data after the warrant authorizing the tracking expired and that the good-faith exception did not apply. Defendant, who was on probation for a controlled-substance offense, was subject to a condition requiring him to submit to warrantless searches of personal property when officers had reasonable cause to believe he possessed prohibited items. Police later obtained successive warrants requiring his cellular provider to supply real-time GPS information for 30 days “from the date of search warrant service.” The second warrant was delivered to Verizon on 10/25/23, but Verizon continued providing location information after 11/24/23. Officers used that information to track defendant on 11/25 and 11/26, leading to a traffic stop and the discovery of controlled substances, a firearm, and ammunition. The court first concluded that “defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his physical movements as monitored by his cell phone real-time GPS data.” It rejected the prosecution’s argument that the 30-day period did not begin until Verizon acknowledged receipt on 10/27. The ordinary legal meaning of service refers to delivery, and “‘service’ is delivery of the legal process itself; acknowledgement or proof of that delivery is a separate matter.” Thus, the warrant expired on 11/24, and the subsequent use of the GPS information “was outside the period authorized by the warrant.” Defendant’s probation condition did not independently authorize the monitoring because requiring him to “submit to” a search contemplated voluntary action by defendant, while here Verizon supplied the information without his participation. Finally, the good-faith exception did not apply. Verizon’s acknowledgment expressly stated that tracking ended on 11/24, the officers themselves included the 30-day limit in their applications, and testimony indicated they understood that sending the warrant constituted service. Thus, “the good-faith exception does not apply, and the trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion to suppress.” The court reversed the suppression ruling, vacated defendant’s convictions, and remanded.