United States v. Davis
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Federal circuit court)
- Decided
- 2024
- Citation
- 109 F.4th 1320 (11th Cir. 2024)
- Standard applied
- Fourth Amendment standing to challenge a geofence warrant
What the court held
A defendant lacked Fourth Amendment standing to challenge a geofence warrant that returned the location of his girlfriend's phone, because the search disclosed no information about data on his own device. Having found no standing, the court did not reach whether the warrant was defective or whether the good-faith exception applied.
Why
The court began from the third-party doctrine: a geofence warrant searches a communications provider's database rather than anything in the user's possession, and a person ordinarily cannot challenge a search of another's records. It rejected the argument that the defendant had a privacy interest in the tracking of his own movements as reflected in a companion's phone.
Our reading — not the court’s words
Why this matters in practice
Davis is the standing obstacle that decides many geofence challenges before the merits are reached, and it exposes a structural feature of location evidence: the person implicated is frequently not the subscriber whose device was found. For a defence team the practical consequence is that the suppression theory has to identify the movant's own data in the return, and for an investigator it means the evidentiary path may run entirely through third parties. Read alongside Smith, the two cases show how differently the same warrant type fares depending on whether standing or particularity comes first.
This paragraph is Legal Cyber Academy’s editorial assessment of the decision’s practical importance. The court said none of it. For what the court actually said, read the opinion.
Additional detail
Tags: geofence warrant · standing · third-party doctrine
Cited 4times in CourtListener’s corpus at the time this entry was compiled. Treat it as a rough measure of influence, not of correctness.
Other decisions on fourth amendment and privacy & surveillance
- United States v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 2012Attaching a GPS tracking device to a vehicle and using it to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Th…
- Riley v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 2014Police generally may not search the digital contents of a cell phone seized incident to an arrest without a warrant. The search-incident-to-arrest exception, wh…
- Carpenter v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2018The government's acquisition of historical cell-site location information from a wireless carrier is a Fourth Amendment search, and generally requires a warrant…
- United States v. WarshakCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2010A subscriber has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of e-mails stored with, or sent or received through, a commercial internet service provider…
- In re Application of the United States for Historical Cell Site DataCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2013Court orders authorised by the Stored Communications Act compelling cell-phone service providers to produce subscribers' historical cell-site information are no…
- United States v. GrahamCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2016Sitting en banc, the Fourth Circuit held that a cell-phone user has no reasonable expectation of privacy in historical cell-site location information held by hi…
Summarised from the opinion as retrieved from CourtListener. Reference material, not legal advice. Back to the repository.