UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 15-CR-216-PP

Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES G. WHEELER,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
EVIDENCE (DKT. NO. 9)
______________________________________________________________________________
On November 3, 2015, defendant Wheeler was indicted by a federal
grand jury on charges of violating the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. §§1951(a) and (2))
by robbing an employee of a clothing store by means of force, and of knowingly
using, carrying or brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of
violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§924(c)(1)(A)(iii) and 2. Dkt. No. 1. On
December 4, 2015, the defendant filed a motion to suppress cell site
information. Dkt. No. 9. The motion asked the court to suppress “all data
disclosed by Sprint Corporation to the government regarding cell tower
information from a cellular telephone,” because “obtaining this information was
a ‘search’ for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, and may only be searched if
the government obtains a warrant that is supported by probable cause.” Id. at
1. Specifically, the defendant challenged the Stored Communications Act, 18
U.S.C. §2703(d) (“SCA”), which allows the government to obtain an order for
such information by simply establishing reasonable grounds to believe that the
1
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 1 of 30 Document 21

 information to be obtained would be relevant and material to an investigation.
The defendant asked the court to find that §2703(d) is unconstitutional as
applied to the facts in his case. Id. at 1-2.
The government responded to the motion to suppress on December 14,
2015, Dkt. No. 11, and Magistrate Judge David E. Jones issued a
recommendation on January 6, 2016, Dkt. No. 15. Judge Jones first noted that
the Seventh Circuit had not decided whether cell users had a Fourth
Amendment reasonable expectation of privacy in historical cell site location
data. Id. at 6. He pointed to several courts, including one magistrate judge in
this district, which had concluded that such an expectation of privacy was not
reasonable, id. at 6-7, opining that “most federal judges” had decided the issue
that way, id. at 7. Judge Jones acknowledged that the defendant had asked
him to follow a Fourth Circuit decision to the contrary, but declined to take up
the Fourth Amendment issue. Id. at 8. Instead, he concluded that the goodfaith exception to the exclusionary rule applied, and mandated denial of the
suppression motion. Id. at 8-10. Judge Jones recommended that this court
deny the motion to suppress. Id. at 11.
The defendant has objected to Judge Jones’ recommendation. Dkt. No.
17. The objection specifically asked this court to reach the question of whether
the government most seek a warrant in order to obtain cell site location data
from a provider. Id. at 4. The defendant argues that providers received
thousands of cell site location data requests from law enforcement in 2014 and
2015, and noted that the United States Supreme Court had advised lower
2
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 2 of 30 Document 21

 courts to address the merits of Fourth Amendment claims “when necessary to
guide future action by law enforcement and magistrates.” Id. at 4 (citing United
States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 924 (1984).
While this court agrees with Magistrate Judge Jones’ determination that
the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies in this case, the court
will grant the defendant’s request to consider the merits of the Fourth
Amendment argument. The Seventh Circuit has declined one request to
address this specific issue precisely because no party raised it in the district
court. See United States v. Daniels, 803 F.3d 335, 351 (7th Cir. 2015). The
statistics the defendant cites in his objection indicate that law enforcement
frequently make use of SCA orders to obtain cell site location data. The court
agrees with the defendant that this issue is likely to re-occur in this district.
For that reason, this decision considers only the Fourth Amendment question,
and the court finds that collecting cell site location data does not constitute a
search under that amendment.
Background
On October 7, 2015, the government applied for an order under
§2703(d), asking Sprint to disclose records regarding cell phone number (414)
366-5233. Dkt. No. 9 at 2. Among the records the government requested were
“[a]ll data about which ‘cell towers’ (i.e., antenna towers covering geographic
areas) and ‘sectors’ (i.e., faces of the towers) received a radio signal from each
cellular telephone or device assigned to the account.” Id. The government based
its request on information it received from an informant who had told the
3
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 3 of 30 Document 21

 government that he’d participated in a robbery with the defendant, and that
the defendant had used that telephone on the day of the robbery. The
government hoped the data it sought from Sprint would allow it to identify and
locate the defendant. Id. The magistrate judge to whom the application was
addressed granted that request, and the defendant argued in the motion to
suppress that the government intends to use the data it obtained pursuant to
that order if the case goes to trial.1 Id. at 3.
The Stored Communications Act
The SCA allows the government to require an electronic communications
provider to provide it with records or information “pertaining to a subscriber to
or a customer of such service (not including the contents of communications)”
if the government either “obtains a warrant issued using the procedures
described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure” or “obtains a court order
for such disclosure under subsection (d) of this section.” 18 U.S.C. §§2703(c)(A)
and (B). Subsection (d) reads as follows:
(d) Requirements for court order.—A court order for disclosure
under subsection (b) or (c) may be issued by any court that is a
court of competent jurisdiction and shall issue only if the
governmental entity offers specific and articulable facts showing
that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a
wire or electronic communication, or the records or other
information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing
criminal investigation. . . .
Footnote 1 in the motion to suppress indicates that the government informed
the defendant that it intended to use only the cell tower information it
obtained, not other information that Sprint disclosed as a result of the
magistrate judge’s order. Thus, Judge Jones considered only the challenge to
the cell tower information; the defendant has reserved the right to move to
suppress any other Sprint information the government may later attempt to
introduce at trial. Dkt. No. 9 at 3 n.1.
1

4
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 4 of 30 Document 21

 The defendant has conceded that in this case, the government’s
application met the “reasonable grounds” standard articulated in §2703(d). The
motion to suppress argued, however, that under the circumstances of this
case, the Fourth Amendment required the government to obtain a warrant in
order to obtain the cell tower information. Dkt. No. 9 at 6.
The Defendant’s Objection
The defendant has pointed out that three federal appellate courts—the
Eleventh, the Fifth and the Fourth Circuits—have ruled on the question of
whether “cell tower information that telecommunication carriers collect is
protected by the Fourth Amendment.” Id. (quoting Daniels, 803 F.3d at 351
(declining to decide the issue because the defendant failed to raise it in the
district court)). The Seventh Circuit has not decided the issue. The Eleventh
Circuit and the Fifth Circuit have held that obtaining cell site data from a
third-party provider does not constitute a “search” or “seizure” under the
Fourth Amendment. United States v. Davis, 785 F.3d 498, 511 (11th Cir. 2015)
(en banc); In re United States for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600, 61113 (5th Cir. 2013). A panel of the Fourth Circuit, in an appeal calendared for en
banc rehearing,2 decided otherwise. United States v. Graham, 796 F.3d 332
(4th Cir. 2015), reh’g en banc granted, 624 F. App’x 75 (4th Cir. Oct. 28, 2015).

The order granting en banc review indicates that the case is “tentatively
calendared for oral argument during the court’s March 22-25, 2016, oral
argument session.” United States v. Graham, 624 F. App’x 75 (4th Cir. Oct.
28, 2015).
2

5
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 5 of 30 Document 21

 In his objection to Judge Jones’ recommendation, the defendant argued
that Judge Jones “did not address whether obtaining [cell site location
information] requires a warrant based on probable cause.” Dkt. No. 17 at 3.
Rather, the defendant argues, Judge Jones did not reach that issue, because
he concluded that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied (the
government having relied upon the validity of the procedures Congress had laid
out in the SCA). Id. The defendant asks this court to reach the question of
whether the government’s collection of cell site location data from a third-party
provider constitutes a “search” that requires a warrant, and he relies on the
motion he filed before Judge Jones in arguing that the court should conclude
that such activity does constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, and
does require a warrant. Id. at 4. In the motion filed with Judge Jones, the
defendant relied almost exclusively on the Fourth Circuit’s decision in United
States v. Graham. Dkt. No. 9 at 3-16.
The Three Circuit Court Decisions
The Fifth Circuit
In 2013, a panel of the Fifth Circuit reviewed a district court’s decision
that the “SCA violates the Fourth Amendment because the Act allows the
United States to obtain a court order compelling a cell phone company to
disclose historical cell site records merely based on a showing of ‘specific and
articulable facts,’ rather than probable cause.” In re U.S. for Historical Cell Site
Data, 724 F.3d 600, 605-606 (5th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). In considering
whether an order requiring a provider to disclose cell phone data constituted a
6
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 6 of 30 Document 21

 “search” or “seizure,” the Fifth Circuit began by noting that “[t]his question of
who is recording an individual’s information initially is key . . . .” Id. at 610.
Why? Because
the individual must occasionally transact business with other
people. When he does so, he leaves behind, as evidence of his
activity, the records and recollections of others. He cannot expect
that these activities are his private affair. To the extent an
individual knowingly exposes his activities to third parties, he
surrenders Fourth Amendment protections, and, if the
Government is subsequently called upon to investigate his
activities for possible violations of the law, it is free to seek out
these third parties, to inspect their records, and to probe their
recollections for evidence.
Id. (quoting Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 593
F.2d 1030, 1043 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (alteration omitted)). Based on this reasoning,
the Fifth Circuit concluded that “cell site information is clearly a business
record,” and that “[t]he cell provider collects and stores historical cell site data
for its own business purposes . . . .” Id. at 611. That court noted that “[t]he
Government does not require service providers to record this information or
store it. The providers control what they record and how long these records are
retained.” Id. at 612. Given that, the court concluded that “the Government
merely comes in after the fact and asks a provider to turn over records the
provider has already created.” Id. at 612.
With regard to a cell phone user’s expectation of privacy, the Fifth Circuit
reasoned that “[a] cell service subscriber, like a telephone user, understands
that his cell phone must send a signal to a nearby cell tower in order to
wirelessly connect his call.” Id. at 613. The court also concluded that cell
phone users’ “use of their phones . . . is entirely voluntary.” Id. (citing United
7
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 7 of 30 Document 21

 States v. Skinner, 690 F.3d 772, 777 (6th Cir. 2012)). Finally, while
acknowledging that advancing technology might be changing citizens’
expectations of privacy, the court stated that “[i]n circumstances involving
dramatic technological change, the best solution to privacy concerns may be
legislative. A legislative body is well situated to gauge changing public
attitudes, to draw detailed lines, and to balance privacy and public safety in a
comprehensive way.” Id. at 614 (quoting United States v. Jones, ____ U.S.
_____, 132 S. Ct. 945, 964 (2012)). The court acknowledged that:
cell phone users may reasonably want their location information to
remain private, just as they may want their trash, placed curbside
in opaque bags, or the view of their property from 400 feet above
the ground, to remain so. But the recourse for these desires is in
the market or the political process: in demanding that service
providers do away with such records (or anonymize them) or in
lobbying representatives to enact statutory protections. The Fourth
Amendment, safeguarded by the courts, protects only reasonable
expectations of privacy.
Id. at 615 (citations omitted).
For these reasons, the Fifth Circuit held that Fourth Amendment
precedent “does not recognize a situation where a conventional order for a third
party’s voluntarily created business records transforms into a Fourth
Amendment search or seizure when the records cover more than some
specified time period or shed light on a target’s activities in an area
traditionally protected from government intrusion.” Id.
The Eleventh Circuit
In Davis, the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, also concluded that “the
government’s obtaining a § 2703(d) court order for the production of [a cell
8
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 8 of 30 Document 21

 provider’s] business records did not violate the Fourth Amendment.” Davis, 785
F.3d at 511. The court first concluded that cell tower records are created,
stored and controlled, not by the defendant, but by the provider, and thus that
such “non-content evidence” does not belong to the defendant. Id. Second, the
court concluded that the defendant did not have any “subjective or objective
reasonable expectation of privacy in [the provider’s] business records showing
the cell tower locations that wireless connected his calls at or near the time of
[his crimes].” Id. Regarding a subjective expectation of privacy, the Eleventh
Circuit stated that “[u]sers are aware that cell phones do not work when they
are outside the range of the provider company’s cell tower network.” Id. As to
an objective expectation of privacy, the Eleventh Circuit found “no reason to
conclude that cell phone users lack facts about the functions of cell towers or
about telephone providers’ recording cell tower usage.” Id. (citing Smith v.
Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 742-43 (1989)). For all of these reasons, the Eleventh
Circuit concluded that “the government’s obtaining a § 2703(d) court order for
production of [the provider’s] business records at issue did not constitute a
search and did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of [the defendant].” Id.
at 513.
The Fourth Circuit
The defendant urged Judge Jones, and urges this court, to follow the
conclusion reached by a panel of the Fourth Circuit in United States v.
Graham, 796 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2015), reh’g en banc granted, 624 F. App’x. 75

9
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 9 of 30 Document 21

 (4th Cir. Oct. 28, 2015). The court will discuss that decision in more detail in
the analysis section, below.
Analysis
Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Many of the Supreme Court’s search-and-seizure decisions start by
analyzing the question of whether the government activity at issue constitutes
and intrusion into an individual’s privacy, and the spectrum of activities which
may or may not constitute intrusion grows broader with every technological
innovation. At one end of the spectrum, the Court’s cases have adhered to an
“understanding that mere visual observation does not constitute a search.”
United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. at 953 (citing Kyllo v. United States, 533
U.S. 27, 31-32 (2001)). “What a person knowingly exposes to the public . . . is
not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S.
347, 351-52 (1967).
At the other end of the spectrum, if the government “physically occupie[s]
private property for the purpose of obtaining information,” it has conducted a
search. United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. at 949. The Jones court held that the
act of installing a GPS device on a target’s car (which the target
owned/possessed at the time of the installation), then using that device to
monitor the movements of the car, was a physical “trespass,” and constituted a
search. Id.

10
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 10 of 30 Document 21

 Between the two ends of the spectrum are government activities that do
not constitute trespass, but allow the government to obtain information in
which an individual might have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
While there appears to be little doubt that government action that
involves physical trespass constitutes a search, the Court has held that
government activity need not constitute a physical trespass or seizure in order
to constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. Katz, 389 U.S. at 353
(1967) (“ . . . once it is recognized that the Fourth Amendment protects
people—and not simply ‘areas’—against unreasonable searches and seizures it
becomes clear that the reach of that Amendment cannot turn upon the
presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure.”) “[E]ven
in the absence of trespass, ‘a Fourth Amendment search occurs when the
government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes
as reasonable.’” Jones, 132 S. Ct. at 954 (Sotomayor, J., concurring) (quoting
Kyllo, 533 U.S. at 33). “[W]hat [a person] seeks to preserve as private, even in
an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” Katz, 389
U.S. at 351-52 (citations omitted).
In assessing the growing universe of factual scenarios that do not involve
physical trespass but may involve a violation of an expectation of privacy,
courts must look at whether the person challenging the search “exhibited an
actual (subjective) expectation of privacy,” and whether that expectation was
“one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” Id. at 361 (Harlan,
J., concurring) (internal quotation marks omitted). In considering whether the
11
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 11 of 30 Document 21

 person has exhibited an expectation of privacy, the Supreme Court has looked
at whether the “individual, by his conduct,” has shown that “‘he seeks to
preserve [something] as private.’” United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 281
(1983) (citing Katz, 389 U.S. at 351). In considering whether the expectation is
a reasonable one, courts must look at whether the expectation, “viewed
objectively, is ‘justifiable’ under the circumstances.” Id. (citing Katz, 389 U.S. at
361).
The court has made clear that individuals have both a subjective and a
reasonable expectation of privacy inside their homes.3 See, e.g., Illinois v.
Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980);
Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (1961). Thus, when law enforcement
officers, from outside of the defendant’s residence, aimed a thermal imaging
device at the house to detect the heat emitted by marijuana grow lamps, the
Supreme Court held that “obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any
information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have
been obtained without physical ‘intrusion into a constitutionally protected
The Court has held that the same expectation of privacy, regardless of the
individual’s subjective expectation, is not reasonable when the area at issue is
the outside of a person’s home. See Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445, 450-51
(1989) (officer’s view of the defendant’s partially-open greenhouse from a
helicopter was not a search, because the defendant “could not reasonably have
expected the contents of his greenhouse to be immune from examination by an
officer seated in a fixed-wing aircraft flying in navigable space at an altitude of .
. . 500 feet . . . .”); California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 215 (1986) (officer’s
surveillance of the defendant’s yard from an airplane did not constitute a
search, because “[i]n an age where private and commercial flight in the public
airways is routine, it is unreasonable for respondent to expect that his
marijuana plants were constitutionally protected from being observed with the
naked eye from an altitude of 1,000 feet.”).
3

12
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 12 of 30 Document 21

 area’” violated the defendant’s objectively reasonable expectation of privacy
regarding the interior of his home. Kyllo, 533 U.S. at 34 (quoting Silverman,
365 U.S. at 512).
Similarly, the Court held that law enforcement agents’ monitoring of a
“beeper” transmitter when the transmitter is inside a private residence
constitutes a search. See United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705, 714 (1984)
(“This case thus presents the question whether the monitoring of a beeper in a
private residence, a location not open to visual surveillance, violates the Fourth
Amendment rights of those who have a justifiable interest in the privacy of the
residence. . . . [W]e think that it does.”) The court came to this conclusion
because “private residences are places in which the individual normally expects
privacy free of governmental intrusion not authorized by a warrant, and that
expectation is plainly one that society is prepared to recognize as justifiable,”
id. at 714, and because by monitoring the beeper, “the Government
surreptitiously employ[ed] an electronic device to obtain information that it
could not have obtained by observation from outside the curtilage of the
house,” id. at 715. Namely, the monitoring
[t]ells the agent that a particular article is actually located at a
particular time in the private residence and is in the possession of
the person or persons whose residence is being watched. Even if
visual surveillance has revealed that the article to which the beeper
is attached has entered the house, the later monitoring not only
verifies the officers’ observations but also establishes that the
article remains on the premises.

13
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 13 of 30 Document 21

 Id.4
Individuals also may, under certain circumstances, have an objectively
reasonable expectation of privacy in a physical space that is not the interior of
their home. In Katz, the court concluded that the government conducted a
search when it attached an electronic listening device to the outside of a
telephone booth, allowing it to listen to and record a person who went into a
phone booth, “shut[] the door behind him, and pa[id] the toll that permit[ted]
him to place a call,” Katz, 389 U.S. at 352, even though the government did not
physically enter the phone booth. In his concurring opinion, Justice Harlan
reasoned a person in a phone booth had a subjectively reasonable expectation
of privacy; once someone had entered a phone booth and closed the door
behind him, the booth became “a temporarily private place whose momentary
occupants’ expectations of freedom from intrusion are recognized as
reasonable.” Id. at 361.
Once the government action moves away from gathering information
about the interior of a person’s home, or from some other physical space in
which an individual may isolate herself from the public purview, it becomes
more difficult for an individual to demonstrate that an expectation of privacy,
If officers monitor a beeper inside a car traveling on “public thoroughfares,”
however, the individual driving the car “has no reasonable expectation of
privacy in his movements from one place to another.” Knotts, 460 U.S. at 28182. The court found that under those circumstances, the monitoring of the
beeper did not reveal anything that visual surveillance (given enough law
enforcement agents) would not have revealed. The placement of the beeper did
not constitute a physical trespass, either, because “the beeper had been placed
in the container before it came into Knotts’ possession, with the consent of the
then-owner.” Jones, 132 S. Ct. at 951.
4

14
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 14 of 30 Document 21

 even if subjective, is reasonable. In 1976, the Court held that using a subpoena
to obtain copies of the defendant’s checks and deposit slips from his bank did
not constitute a search. United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976). The court
“perceive[d] no legitimate ‘expectation of privacy’ in the[] contents” of the bank
records, id. at 442; it concluded that the records belonged to the bank, not the
defendant, id. at 440, and emphasized that
[t]his Court has held repeatedly that the Fourth Amendment
does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a
third party and conveyed [by that third party] to Government
authorities, even if the information is revealed on the
assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and
the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed.
Id. at 443.
In Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979), the Court reiterated
that “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he
voluntarily turns over to third parties.” In Smith, the defendant argued that law
enforcement’s collection of information about the telephone numbers that the
defendant had dialed from his landline phone, collected via a pen register
installed by the phone company at law enforcement’s request, constituted a
search. Id. at 738-39. The Supreme Court disagreed. It first expressed “doubt
that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the
numbers they dial.” Id. at 742. The Court opined that telephone users “realize
that they must ‘convey’ phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is
through the telephone company switching equipment that their calls are
completed.” Id. The Court also pointed out that phone users “realize . . . that
the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the
15
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 15 of 30 Document 21

 numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance . . . calls on their
monthly bills.” Id. The Court went on to explain other facts which ought to give
telephone users reason to know that the phone company was capable of
collecting the numbers they dialed. Id.
The Court also held that even if, somehow, a phone user “did harbor
some subjective expectation that the phone numbers he dialed would remain
private, this expectation is not ‘one that society is prepared to recognize as
“reasonable.”’” Id. (quoting Katz, 389 U.S. at 361) (Harlan, J., concurring).
Citing its decision in Miller, the Court stated that “[t]his Court consistently has
held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he
voluntarily turns over to third parties.” Id. at 743-44. The court concluded that
“[w]hen he used his phone, petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical
information to the telephone company and ‘exposed’ that information to its
equipment in the ordinary course of business,” thus “assum[ing] the risk that
the company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed.” Id. at 744.
This reasoning—that once an individual turns information over to a third
party, the individual’s expectation of privacy is no longer reasonable—has led
the Court to conclude that an individual who shipped cocaine (inside a tube
made of duct tape, then surrounded by newspaper, placed inside a cardboard
box and wrapped in brown paper) via a private freight carrier had no
reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the package once the
original expectation of privacy had been “frustrated” by transit damage that
occurred prior to law enforcement’s involvement, United States v. Jacobsen,
16
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 16 of 30 Document 21

 466 U.S. 109, 126 (1984), and that residents who put their garbage out on the
curb for collection have no reasonable expectation of privacy, California v.
Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 40 (1988).
In 2014, the Supreme Court confronted a challenge to law enforcement
officers’ accessing of information stored in the defendant’s cell phone. Riley v.
California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014). The Court framed the issue as follows: “The
two cases before us concern the reasonableness of a warrantless search
incident to a lawful arrest.” Id. at 2482. In particular, the Court focused on “the
extent to which officers may search property found on or near the arrestee,” id.
at 2483-83, and looked to its decisions in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752
(1969), United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973), and Arizona v. Grant,
556 U.S. 332 (2009) for guiding principles in answering whether the searchincident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement extended to an officer’s
search of the data on an arrestee’s cell phone.
It does not appear from a reading of the Riley opinion that any party
argued that the officers did not conduct “searches” when they accessed the
data on the defendants’ phones. To the contrary, the government argued that
searching the data stored in a cell phone was “materially indistinguishable”
from searching things like wallets, zippered bags and address books. Id. at
2488-89. Given that arrestees have “diminished privacy interests” because the
grounds that give rise to the arrest and detention provide the government with
a basis for intruding into the arrestee’s privacy, the government argued that
the diminished privacy interests occasioned by an arrest allowed officers to
17
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 17 of 30 Document 21

 search a cell phone on an arrestee’s person, just as it would allow their search
of a wallet on the arrestee’s person. Id. at 2488. The question in Riley, then,
was not whether accessing the data constituted a search, but whether that
search constituted such an intrusion into an arrestee’s (diminished)
expectation of privacy that it fell outside of the search-incident-to-arrest
exception. The court concluded that it did, and based that decision on the
nature of a cell phone as opposed to the nature of other objects an arrestee
might carry (such as wallet). Id. at 2489.
The Court emphasized the “immense storage capacity” of cell phones as
opposed to other things a person might carry. Id. The Court found that that
storage capacity allowed a person to carry, in one device, “the sum of an
individual’s private life.” Id. The Court also found significant the pervasiveness
of cell phones—the Court stated that “it is no exaggeration to say that many of
the more that 90% of American adults who own a cell phone keep on their
person a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives—from the mundane
to the intimate.” Id. at 2490. The Court opined that “[a]llowing the police to
scrutinize such records on a routine basis is quite different from allowing them
to search a personal item or two in the occasional case.” Id. It posited that
a cell phone search would typically expose to the government
fare more than the most exhaustive search of a house; A phone
not only contains in digital form many sensitive records
previously found in the home; it also contains a broad array of
private information never found in a home in any form—unless
the phone is.
Id. at 2490-91.

18
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 18 of 30 Document 21

 The Court also noted that cell phone users could access data stored on
remote servers (in the “cloud”) when the phone was connected to the internet.
Id. at 2491. The government had conceded that data stored in the cloud did not
fall within the scope of the search-incident-to-arrest warrant exception, and the
Court analogized a search of cloud-stored data from an arrestee’s phone to
“finding a key in a suspect’s pocket and arguing that it allowed law
enforcement to unlock and search a house.” Id. The Court stated, however,
that an officer viewing an arrestee’s phone data likely could not know whether
she was viewing locally-stored or remotely-stored data, and thus that extending
the search-incident-to-arrest exception to allow officers to access phone data
would necessarily allow them to access data not stored on the device. Id.
The government argued in the alternative that the Court ought at least
extend the search-incident-to-arrest exception to allow officers to search the
phone’s call log. Id. at 2492. In making this argument, the government relied
on the Court’s pen-register decision in Smith v. Maryland. The Riley Court
rejected this argument, stating: “The Court in [Smith], however, concluded that
the use of a pen register was not a ‘search’ at all under the Fourth Amendment.
There is no dispute here that the officers engaged in a search of Wurie’s cell
phone.” Id. at 2492-93 (citations omitted).
The Riley Court concluded, “Our holding, of course, is not that the
information on a cell phone is immune from search; it is instead that a warrant
is generally required before such a search, even when a cell phone is seized
incident to arrest.” Id. at 2493. The Court also left room for the possibility that,
19
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 19 of 30 Document 21

 while the search-incident-to-arrest exception did not apply to cell phones,
“other case-specific exceptions may still justify a warrantless search of a cell
phone.” Id. at 2494.
Analysis of Graham In Light of Supreme Court’s Jurisprudence
As stated earlier, against this backdrop, the defendant urges this court to
follow the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning in Graham, and to find that when the
government obtains cell site location data from the provider, that action
constitutes a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. This court is not
persuaded by the Graham court’s reasoning.
The Graham court first concluded that, “[l]ike the searches challenged in
Karo and Kyllo, examination of historical CSLI can allow the government to
place an individual and her personal property—specifically, her cell phone—at
the person’s home and other private locations at specific points in time.”
Graham, 796 F.3d at 346. The Graham court combined its reading of Karo
(striking down the monitoring of a transmitter inside a private residence) and
Kyllo (striking down law enforcement’s use of a thermal imaging device to
obtain information about heat transmission inside the home) to reach the
conclusion that those two courts “recognized the location of a person and her
property within a home at a particular time as a ‘critical’ private detail
protected from the government’s intrusive use of technology.” Id. at 347.
This court does not agree. Neither Karo nor Kyllo stood for the
proposition that an individual had a reasonable privacy interest in whether or
not she was inside her home. Rather, both cases emphasized a concern that
20
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 20 of 30 Document 21

 use of devices such as transmitters and thermal imagers provided law
enforcement with details about the interior of an individual’s home that they
could not have detained via traditional surveillance.
Katz, Knotts, and Jones all acknowledged in different ways that
obtaining facts by visual surveillance (of a person, of the travels of a car) did
not constitute a search. A well-established investigative tool is the “stake-out,”
where officers station themselves outside of a location and watch to see who
enters and who leaves. Another is a “tail,” where officers follow individuals to
see where they go, and with whom they meet. Cell phone site data uses
electronic means to collect that same information, without the same
commitment of law enforcement personnel. As the Knotts Court stated,
“nothing in the Fourth Amendment prohibited the police from augmenting the
sensory faculties bestowed upon them at birth with such enhancement as
science and technology afforded them in this case.” Knotts, 460 U.S. at 282.
It is true that the Karo Court disapproved of the government using a
device to determine
[t]hat a particular article is actually located at a particular time in
the private residence and is in the possession of the person or
persons whose residence is being watched. Even if visual
surveillance has revealed that the article to which the beeper is
attached has entered the house, the later monitoring not only
verifies the officers’ observations but also establishes that the
article remains on the premises.
Karo, 468 U.S. at 715. The critical distinctions between the activity in Karo and
the collection of cell site location data, however, are that (a) in Karo the officers,
without the defendant’s consent, placed the transmitter in the container which
21
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 21 of 30 Document 21

 made its way inside the residence, whereas the defendant in this case chose to
purchase, carry and use his phone; and (b) the defendant in Karo did not
voluntarily turn the transmitter data over to a third party—this court believes
the defendant in this case did, as it will explain.
The Graham court next concluded that, unlike visual surveillance, the
government could obtain from cell site location data location information about
an individual over long periods of time. This led the court to Jones, and the
concerns expressed by concurring justices, such as Justice Sotomayor, that
“longer term [electronic] monitoring in investigations of most offenses impinges
upon expectations of privacy.” Graham, 796 F.3d at 347 (citing Jones, 132 S.
Ct. at 955) (Sotomayor, J., concurring). Combining the Jones decision with its
reading of Karo and Kyllo, the Graham court concluded that “the government
engages in a Fourth Amendment search when it seeks to examine historical
CSLI pertaining to an extended time period like 14 or 221 days.” Id. at 350.
That conclusion is overly broad. The Jones majority decided that the
collection of the GPS data was a search, not because of how long the data
collection went on, but because the government trespassed on the defendant’s
property by installing the device on the car, and leaving it there, without a
warrant. Jones, 132 S. Ct. at 952 (“Jones, who possessed the Jeep at the time
the Government trespassorily inserted the information-gathering device, is on
much different footing [than the defendant in Karo].”)
In her concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor agreed that the GPS
tracking constituted a search, but did not agree with the majority that that
22
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 22 of 30 Document 21

 conclusion was mandated by the trespass theory. Rather, she concluded that
the GPS monitoring violated the defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy.
She opined that “[i]n the pre-computer age, the greatest protections of privacy
were neither constitutional nor statutory, but practical.” Id. at 963. She
explained that in that era, law enforcement could not conduct constant
surveillance of an individual “for weeks” without a massive expenditure of
resources—“a large team of agents, multiple vehicles, and perhaps aerial
assistance.” Id. Justice Sotomayor concluded that given the practical problems
with conducting extended periods of surveillance using non-electronic
surveillance methods, “society’s expectation has been that law enforcement
agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—
secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for
a very long period.” Id. at 964. In other words, she concluded that individuals
had an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the history of their
whereabouts over time, because they had a reasonable expectation that law
enforcement did not have the capability to conduct such long-term
surveillance. She concluded that the Court did not need to “identify with
precision the point at which the tracking of this vehicle became a search, for
the line was surely crossed before the 4-week mark.” Id.
This court disagrees that today, when many Americans own some sort of
cell phone and carry it frequently, an individual’s expectation that the
government could not track his whereabouts over time is reasonable. The
media is rife with information—and sometimes warnings—about the fact that
23
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 23 of 30 Document 21

 one’s location can be tracked from one’s cell phone. There are web sites that
claim to allow one to “find the exact location of any phone.” Kim Komando,
Find the Exact Location of Any Phone (May 31, 2014),
www.domando.com/tips/2553377/find-the-exact-location-of-any-phone/all.
There are applications that purport to allow family members to track each
other’s locations through their phones. LIFE360, https://www.life360.com, last
checked March 11, 2016. There are web sites that purport to teach viewers to
track cell phone locations using applications not necessarily created for that
purpose. Ryan Dube, How to Trace a Mobile Phone Location with Google
Latitude, MAKEUSEOF, (May 22, 2009), www.makeuseof.com/tag/how-to-tracea-mobile-phone-location-with-google-latitude/. There are articles warning that
applications on one’s smart phone collect location data. Bob Sullivan, A Shock
In the Dark: Flashlight App Tracks Your Location, NBC NEWS, (Jan. 16, 2013,
6:06 a.m.), www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/shock-dark-flashlight-apptracks-your-location-f1B7991120. Many smart phone applications politely ask
phone owners for permission to use their locations in order to map travel
routes (Google Maps), find restaurants (Yelp, Foursquare), or locate the
cheapest gas at stations nearby (GasBuddy).
Popular culture promotes the notion that the government, too, can
determine extensive information about an individual from, among other things,
one’s phone. In 2013, the news was filled with former National Security Agency
contractor Edward Snowden’s revelations regarding the extent to which the
NSA allegedly was collecting phone metadata without warrants or court orders;
24
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 24 of 30 Document 21

 controversy continues regarding whether such a practice was justified,
necessary or lawful. See, e.g., Catherine Treyz, NSA Ends Bulk Phone Data
Collection, CNN, (Nov. 28, 2015, 6:57 p.m.),
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/28/us/nsa-ends-bulk-phone-surveillance/. As
long ago as 2004, the popular HBO series “The Wire” devoted an episode to the
use of the disposable prepaid cell phones used by the drug-dealing characters
in the show. THE WIRE, 32: BACK BURNERS (HBO 2004), available at
http://www.hbo.com/the-wire/episodes/3/32-back-burners/index.html. In
2008, the Seventh Circuit referenced the show in noting that “prepaid cellular
phone[s] with no subscriber information,” known as “dope phones” or “burners”
were “difficult to trace and a favored tool of drug dealers.” United States v.
Fiasche, 520 F.3d 694, 695 and n.1 (7th Cir. 2008). A common plot mechanism
in police and crime shows involves officers using triangulation techniques to
locate someone via their cell phone.
The court points to the abundance of exposure the concept has had
because, given that abundance, it is becoming more and more unlikely that an
individual’s expectation that the government could not track his location for an
extended period of time, “viewed objectively, is ‘justifiable’ under the
circumstances.” Knotts, 460 U.S. at 281 (citing Katz, 389 U.S. at 351)). For
these reasons, the court does not agree with the Graham court that the
government invades a “reasonable” expectation of privacy “when it relies upon

25
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 25 of 30 Document 21

 technology not in general use to discover the movements of an individual over
an extended period of time.” Graham, 796 F.3d at 349.5
The Graham court also disagreed with the government that its activity
was not a search because the government obtained the cell site location data
from a third party. Id. at 353. The court held that a cell phone user did not
voluntarily turn cell site data over to a third-party provider. The court stated,
“We decline to apply the third-party doctrine in the present case because a cell
phone user does not ‘convey’ CSLI to her service provider at all—voluntarily or
otherwise—and therefore does not assume any risk of disclosure to law
enforcement.” Id. at 354. It explained this conclusion as follows:
The service provider automatically generates CSLI in
response to connections made between the cell phone and
the provider’s network, with and without the user’s active
participation. . . . . “Unlike the bank records in Miller or the
phone numbers dialed in Smith, cell-site data is neither
tangible nor visible to a cell phone user.” In re Application of
U.S. for Historical Cell Site Data, 747 F. Supp. 2d 827, 844
(S.D. Tex. 2010), vacated, 724 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2013). A
user is not required to actively submit any locationidentifying information when making a call or sending a
message. Such information is rather “quietly and
automatically calculated by the network, without unusual or
overt intervention that might be detected by the target user.”
Id. at 833. We cannot impute to a cell phone user the risk
The officers in Jones collected cell site location data for twenty-eight days.
Jones, 132 S. Ct. at 948. In this case, the government obtained thirty days’
worth of cell site location data. Dkt. No. 9-1 at 10. In Graham, the government
collected 221 days’ worth of data. Graham, 796 F.3d at 347. Like Justice
Sotomayor, this court makes no determination regarding whether, and when, a
cell phone user’s expectation of privacy might become more reasonable due to
the number of days’ worth of data the government collects. For the reasons
stated above, the court finds that the defendant did not have a reasonable
expectation that the government could not determine his whereabouts over a
thirty-day period.
5

26
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 26 of 30 Document 21

 that information about her location created by her service
provider will be disclosed to law enforcement when she
herself has not actively disclosed this information.
Id. at 354-55 (some citations and internal quotations omitted).6
The Graham court rejected the Fifth Circuit’s conclusion that “users
know that they convey information about their location to their service
providers when they make a call.” Id. at 355 (quoting U.S. for Historical Cell
Site Data (In re Application (Fifth Circuit)), 724 F.3d at 612). The Graham court
held that “[p]eople cannot be deemed to have volunteered to forfeit expectations
of privacy by simply seeking active participation in society through use of their
cell phones.” Id. at 356. The court found that the question was not whether
users understood generally how their cell phones worked, but rather, “whether
users are generally aware of what specific cell sites are utilized when their
phones connect to a cellular network. . . . We have no reason to suppose that
users generally know what cell sites transmit their communications or whether
those cell sites are located.” Id.
The Graham court also found relevant that its case involved location
information, “not only for those transmissions in which Appellants actively
participated—i.e., messages or calls they made or answered—but also for
messages and calls their phones received but they did not answer.” Graham,
796 F.3d at 355. It concerned the Graham court that with this information,
“the phone’s location is identified without any affirmative act by its user at all—
much less, ‘voluntary conveyance.’” Id. (citations and internal quotes omitted).
As indicated in footnote 1 above, the government has indicated to the defense
in this case that it plans to use only cell tower data—identified in the
attachment to the court order as “[a]ll data about which ‘cell towers’ (i.e.,
antenna towers covering specific geographic areas) and ‘sectors’ (i.e., faces of
the towers) received a radio signal from each cellular telephone or device
assigned to the account.” Dkt. No. 9-1 at 11. It does not appear to the court,
from this description, that the information the government seeks to use in this
case is as broad as that the government sought to obtain in Graham, and thus
will not discuss this portion of the Graham decision.
6

27
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 27 of 30 Document 21

 This court finds the Graham court’s rationale hard to square with the
Supreme Court’s decisions regarding the third-party doctrine. Each of the
third-party doctrine cases this court discussed above involved situations in
which a user chose to utilize a modern convenience, and by so choosing,
exposed information about himself to a third party. A person chooses to put
money in a bank—whether because it is safer, or more convenient, or provides
interest income—but that is a choice. That same person could keep his money
at home in a mattress, and avoid the risk that the bank will share his financial
information with law enforcement. A person chooses to put his household
garbage into a bin and set it out by the curb for collection, in lieu of
composting it in his back yard or taking it somewhere to burn. The latter
actions, while messy and inconvenient, would avoid the risk that the sanitation
department will share what’s in that garbage with law enforcement. A person
chooses to use a telephone, when she could communicate by letter or by
visiting the person with whom she wishes to speak, but that choice puts her at
risk that the phone company will disclose information about her to law
enforcement.
It is not practical to assume in 2016 that the majority of people will live
their busy, interconnected and global lives without using banks, garbage
collection, credit cards, telephones, but the Supreme Court’s third-party
doctrine decisions do not analyze whether it would be difficult for an individual
to function without those conveniences. They analyze whether it is reasonable
for that individual to expect that once she utilizes a particular convenience, the
28
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 28 of 30 Document 21

 third party who collects the trail of information that use leaves behind will not
share it with law enforcement.
This court also is puzzled by the Graham court’s assertion that an
individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in cell tower data because
she does not know which cell towers transmit the communications, or where
they are located. Cell users know that they need to be in some sort of proximity
to a tower in order to have cellular service. Those who drive specific routes
each day to work know well the spots where they’re likely to lose service, and
where they will regain it. Subway riders know why they lose service when they
enter the tunnels. Perhaps cell users do not know, at the moment they discover
that they have reception, where the tower is located. But users of cell phones
know, at all times, that if their phone is connected to a network, they’re in
some kind of proximity to a tower, and that if it is not connected, they likely
aren’t.
In sum, this court does not agree with the Graham court that a cell
phone user has a reasonable expectation that the government cannot track his
location via his phone.
Conclusion
The court concludes that the government’s collection of cell tower
location data from the cell phone provider does not constitute a “search” under
the Fourth Amendment. The collection of the data does not involve a trespass
upon an individual’s person or property, nor into a physical area in which the
person has established a reasonable expectation of privacy. Individuals do not
29
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 29 of 30 Document 21

 have a reasonable expectation that they may use their cell phones to make and
receive calls and yet have their location remain private. Because the collection
of this data does not constitute a search, the government did not violate the
Fourth Amendment by obtaining the defendant’s cell tower location data by
means of a court order, rather than by obtaining the SCA-authorized order.
The court ORDERS that the defendant’s December 4, 2015 motion to
suppress evidence is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 9)
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 14th day of March, 2016.

30
Case 2:15-cr-00216-PP Filed 03/14/16 Page 30 of 30 Document 21