District Court denies motion to suppress cell site data

In United States v. Madison, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105527 (S.D. Fla. 2012), the district court denied a motion to suppress cell site location information as the application contained facts asserting that the defendant was an associate of - and lived near - a known participant.

A 2703(d) order was obtained to get historical cell site records for the defendant after a shooting and other related crimes. To prove specific and articulable facts, law enforcement presented facts concerning the gunman they caught near the scene. They connected the defendant to the gunman with the following facts:

m. Sources have identified Bobby Ricky Madison as a person possibly involved in the armored car robbery that occurred on October 1, 2010. Madison is also a known associate of Moss and Moss's other associates. From document[s] regarding a prior arrest of Madison, the FBI has learned that Madison uses a cellular telephone assigned the number 754-234-7001. 

n. Madison lives in the Opa Locka area near where Moss resides. In May 2010, officers in the same Coconut Creek area from which the two stolen vehicles used in the October 1, 2010, robbery were stolen attempted to perform a traffic stop of a vehicle Madison was driving. He lead the officers on a high-speed car chase before eventually being apprehended. The car he was driving was reported stolen from that same Coconut Creek area at approximately the same time of day as the two vehicles used in the October 1, 2010, robbery.

Thus, the "specific and articulable facts" were that the defendant was a known associate and lived in the area (approximately eight miles away).

The court agreed that the application was sufficient. It presented facts surrounding the armed robbery, the defendant's ties to another participant, and his "skill set and modus operandi for stealing cars." Further, it alleged that at least three others were involved in the act, though only one had been found. As it was reasonable to believe the defendant's cell site data would be relevant and material to the investigation, the 2703(d) order was proper.