Legal Cyber Academy
Case law repository

United States v. Davis

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Federal circuit court)
Decided
2015
Citation
785 F.3d 498 (11th Cir. 2015) (en banc)
Standard applied
SCA § 2703(d) orders for historical cell-tower location records
Evidence or expert admittedFourth AmendmentPrivacy & surveillance
Read the full opinion785 F.3d 498 (11th Cir. 2015) (en banc) · full text on CourtListener

What the court held

Sitting en banc, the Eleventh Circuit held that a court order under § 2703(d) of the Stored Communications Act compelling a telephone company to produce its business records containing historical cell-tower location information did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The denial of the motion to suppress was affirmed and the convictions upheld.

Why

The court treated the records as the carrier's own business records about its network rather than the subscriber's papers, and applied the third-party framework to conclude that compelling their production was not a search of the defendant. It reinstated the vacated panel opinion on every issue except those it decided itself.

Our reading — not the court’s words

Why this matters in practice

Davis was the leading authority for warrantless § 2703(d) collection of historical location data until Carpenter reached the opposite result three years later, and it is included so the shift is visible. Its practical relevance now is transitional: cases built on pre-2018 § 2703(d) returns turn on good faith rather than on this holding. The framing it relied on — that the records belong to the carrier, not the customer — is also the argument still made about every other category of automatically generated telecoms record.

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Tags: CSLI · Stored Communications Act · en banc · superseded by Carpenter

Cited 133times in CourtListener’s corpus at the time this entry was compiled. Treat it as a rough measure of influence, not of correctness.

Summarised from the opinion as retrieved from CourtListener. Reference material, not legal advice. Back to the repository.