District Attorney’s Office

C HAR M ECK DA .COM

State of North Carolina
26th Prosecutorial District
Mecklenburg County

NEWS
RELEASE

R. Andrew Murray
District Attorney

March 27, 2015
DA’s Office statement regarding cell site simulators
The Mecklenburg County District Attorney’s Office has completed its review of
court orders sought by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department to use various
technology, which could include cell site simulators. These court orders, which were granted
and subsequently sealed by state judges, were unsealed with CMPD’s consent in November
2014. The DA’s Office immediately began reviewing those cases individually to determine
whether the information was shared with defendants when necessary.
CHARLOTTE, N.C.

–

The review found that only two cases could involve the use of cell site simulators for
investigative purposes, and in each case, the respective motions and orders, as well as
cellphone records, were provided to the defendants’ attorneys.
The court unsealed 522 orders in which police asked the court’s permission to use cellphone
tracking technology. These were broad requests covering multiple investigative techniques,
including the option to utilize cell cite simulators. Over the course of the review, the DA’s
Office excluded a number of cases, allowing prosecutors to focus only on pending state cases
or cases that resulted in a conviction. The cases excluded from the review were those that w ere
dismissed, resulted in a not guilty verdict or were federally charged.
That process narrowed the review to motions and orders associated with 149 cases. These cases
fall into one of the following categories: 1) The case is still pending, 2) the defend ant was
convicted at trial, 3) the defendant entered a guilty plea, 4) the case has been dismissed to the
Grand Jury pending an indictment or 5) there is an outstanding warrant that has not yet been
served on the defendant. The DA’s Office requested CMPD to review each of these files to
determine whether or not a cell site simulator had in fact been used.
CMPD’s review confirmed that cell site simulators were used in 39 of the 149 cases. In 38 of
those 39 cases, the device was used to locate a defendant who already had a warrant for his
arrest, and only one was used for investigative purposes.
CMPD found that in 70 of the 149 cases, cell site simulators were not used. CMPD was unable
to determine whether or not the device was used in the remaining 40 cases.
Although prosecutors were not able to obtain information as to whether cell site simulators
were definitively used in 40 cases, prosecutors examined the language in the motions to
determine whether CMPD sought the orders for investigative purpose s or for merely locating a
defendant who had already been charged with a crime. Of those 40 cases, only one order was

This news re lease was posted by the D istrict Att orney at www.cha rmeckda.com /ne ws . For m ore information, contact t he D A’s Office at 704 -686-0700.
Page 1 of 2

 apparently sought for investigative purposes. It remains unclear whether this data was
collected by a cell site simulator or another investigative technique.
The DA’s Office then reviewed the files of the two cases – one that CMPD confirmed the use
of a cell site simulator and one that CMPD could not determine whether the device was used –
in which court orders were sought for investigative purposes. The review determined that the
motions and orders – despite being sealed – and cellphone records were provided by CMPD,
included in the files and were turned over by the DA’s Office to the defense in both cases.
It is the position of the DA’s Office that the use of a cell site simulator to locate a defendant
who already has a warrant issued for his arrest is not discoverable, as identifying the location
of the defendant for the purposes of bringing him into custody does not contribute to the
investigation of the alleged crime. If used for investigative purposes, however, cell site
simulators should be included in the evidence of the case and turned over to the defense. The
DA’s Office is working with CMPD to streamline this process to ensure that , moving forward,
such technology continues to be shared as appropriate.
In order to share the results of prosecutors’ review, the DA’s Office will mail letters to defense
attorneys who handled cases in which the office now knows that cell site simulators were used.
Letters will also be sent to attorneys who handled cases in which there is question as to
whether the device was used.
// End //

This news re lease was posted by the D istrict Att orney at www.cha rmeckda.com /ne ws . For m ore information, contact t he D A’s Office at 704 -686-0700.
Page 2 of 2