CeLLSIteLoCatIonInformatIon-4thamend . vIoLatIon ortheInevItaBLedISCoverydoCtrIne ?
Criminal law Section
Continuedfrompage22
appellant as being associated with the phone number .” Id . “ The records check provided police with appellant ’ s name , photo , date of birth , and address .” Id . “ Police also obtained subscriber information from the cell phone provider associated with appellant ’ s phone number , which provided police with the same address as the records check .” Id . “ After determining that the subscriber address matched the address from the records check , law enforcement headed towards the residence .” Id . As law enforcement was headed to the suspect ’ s residence , they also used a cell-site simulator to locate appellant ’ s phone .
The appellant filed a motion to suppress the information obtained by the cell-site simulator because police did not obtain a search warrant prior to using it . The motion to suppress was denied , and the appellant was convicted at trial of manslaughter and attempted aggravated battery . The appellant appealed , claiming that the motion to suppress should have been granted as this was a search in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights .
The Fourth district Court of Appeal held “ although law enforcement ’ s warrantless search of defendant ’ s cell-site location information ( CSLI )” did violate “ his Fourth Amendment rights , defendant ’ s address , which was where he was ultimately found with his cell phone , was obtained lawfully without the use of CSLI .” Id . The Court went on to state the “ CSLI only confirmed to law enforcement that defendant ’ s phone was present at the address , and since law enforcement were already on its way to defendant ’ s address at time of CSLI search , and law enforcement had already obtained a lawful search warrant for the residence on the same day law enforcement made contact with the defendant at the same residence ,” the evidence was legally obtained .” Id . In sum , “ the cell-site location information obtained for the defendant ’ s cell phone was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine .” Id . ( emphasis supplied ).
The court explains that the inevitable discovery doctrine exception “ allows evidence obtained as the result of unconstitutional police procedure ” to “ still be admissible provided that the evidence would ultimately have been discovered by legal means .” Id . n
1
49 Fla . L . Weekly d1960 , Case No . 4d2022-1728 .
Author : Amy Casanova-Ward – Florida Department of Financial Services
SAVE the
DATE
March 29 , 2025 16th Annual 5K Pro Bono river run & 21st Annual Judicial Food Festival , Stetson Law Tampa Campus and riverwalk
May 8 , 2025
Law & Liberty Dinner Hilton Downtown Tampa
HCBA Events
May 20 , 2025 Law Day Membership Luncheon Hilton Downtown Tampa
June 12 , 2025 Installation of Officers & Directors , Chester Ferguson Law Center
Learn more about HCBA events at www . hillsbar . com . Stay connected .
M A r - A P r 2 0 2 5 | H C B A L A W Y E r
2 3