Summary
finding defendant lacked standing to assert a Fourth Amendment protected interest in cell phone not subscribed in his name and had no statutory right to privacy in the phone
Summary of this case from United States v. HyppoliteOpinion
No. 3:06-CR-100.
May 24, 2007
ORDER
On April 26, 2007, the Honorable H. Bruce Guyton, United States Magistrate Judge, filed a 41-page Report and Recommendation (R R) [Doc. 75] in which he recommended that Melvin Skinner's motion to suppress evidence and statements [Doc. 34] be denied, and that Samuel Skinner's motion to suppress his statements made following his arrest [Doc. 48] be denied. This matter is presently before the court on timely objections to the R R filed by defendants.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court has now undertaken a de novo review of those portions of the R R to which defendants object. After doing so, the court readily concludes that Judge Guyton has thoroughly and correctly analyzed the legal issues presented in the defendants' motions to suppress. Thus, any further comment by the court is unnecessary and would be repetitive. In sum, the court finds that (1) assuming that a search occurred when the government utilized cell-site data to locate and track defendant's vehicle as it traveled upon public highways, the defendant lacked standing to assert a Fourth Amendment protected interest in the cell phone data; and (2) the officers had probable cause to arrest defendant Samuel Skinner. Thus, any statements made by defendants subsequent to their arrest shall be admissible at trial.
Accordingly, defendants' objections [Docs. 77, 81] are hereby OVERRULED in their entirety, whereby the R R is ACCEPTED IN WHOLE. Defendants' motions to suppress evidence and statements [Docs. 34. 48] are DENIED.