Agents used the phone to locate the vehicle and never did visual surveillance

Agents used the phone to locate the vehicle and never

This preview shows page 13 - 16 out of 39 pages.

-Agents used the phone to locate the vehicle and never did visual surveillance -They found skinner at a rest stop Procedural History -Skinner moved to suppress the GPS data under the 4 th amendment -The motion was denied -Skinner was found guilty and sentence too concurrent terms (all at once) of 235 months -vs consecutive terms: they run back to back -Concurrent terms, regardless of for what crime ??
Issue -Is that locational data from a cell phone protected by the 4 th amendment? -is there an expectation of privacy in that data -Was there enough evidence to convict for conspiracy to launder money? -Was Skinner entitled to a reduction in sentence -was he a mitigatory; minor player Holding -No reasonable expectation of privacy in locational data from a cell phone Reasoning -Court finds no expectation of privacy in data given by his voluntarily purchased phone -If something gives off a trackable signal, police may use that -Otherwise, criminals get help from technological advances, but police don’t; everyone should be able to benefit equally -Further, Skinner was on public roads -Police could have found Skinner and gotten similar locational data by just following him -If they could be more efficient and expedient in doing so, they should be allowed to do so -Augmenting sensory abilities with technology was approved in Knotts Skinner’s Arguments -Different than other cases because at time they got the location data, they didn’t know Skinner was Big Foot, what car he had, etc. Court finds it irrelevant, as police could have followed co-conspirators and find Skinner form there -Skinner’s movements were observable by all members of the public Courts will look at what the defendant has disclosed to the public in general, not what police specifically know when looking at 4 th Amendment -Police sought court orders for the information -The order/info did not require physical intrusion on property owned by defendant -The unit came pre-equipped with GPS technology at the time it was purchased -It was used for 3 days (not long-term tracking; not sufficient evidence to suppress) *(side note; no relation to 4 th ) Sufficiency of Evidence
-Viewed in light most favorable to the prosecution -Very hard standard to win -Based on that standard, could any rational person find the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt -Argument here is that he carried only drug receipts, not profits or proceeds -Proceeds is the same as profits only if the underlying crime automatically makes money laundering and increases the sentence -**Here the drug charges are different from money laundering and carry heavier penalties -Therefore, the receipts are proceeds Mitigation -Skinner wanted sentence reduced because he played only a minor role -However, he was critical to the success **Clicker: What standard does the court use when looking at mitigating evidence question?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture