Taylor v. Eckert

• Decision Date: 28 March 2022
• Docket Number: 20-CV-6522-FPG
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
• Parties: DANTE TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. STEWART ECKERT, Superintendent Wende Correctional Facility, Respondent.

DANTE TAYLOR, Petitioner,
v.
STEWART ECKERT, Superintendent Wende Correctional Facility, Respondent.

No. 20-CV-6522-FPG

United States District Court, W.D. New York

March 28, 2022

DECISION AND ORDER

HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. Introduction

Pro se Petitioner Dante Taylor, an inmate confined at the Wende Correctional Facility, submitted a Petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his detention in Respondent's custody. ECF No. 1. He has also filed a Motion for a stay and abeyance to permit him to exhaust “unresolved State Court issues.” ECF Nos. 1-3, 5. Taylor is incarcerated pursuant to a judgment entered in Wayne County Court convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of four counts of murder in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 265.27(1)(a)(vii) (two counts), 265.27(1)(a)(viii) (two counts)), two counts of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 140.30(2), 140.30(3)), and arson in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25(1)), which was reduced to arson in the third degree on direct appeal. Id. at 1-2. Taylor was sentenced to consecutive life sentences without parole on the first-degree murder counts and concurrent determinate sentences of 25 years in prison with five years of post-release supervision on the burglary and arson counts.

The judgment of conviction was affirmed by the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department on February 2, 2018, see People v. Taylor, 158 A.D.3d 1095, 72 N.Y.S.3d 256 (4th Dep't 2018),

1

reargument denied 160 A.D.3d 1506, 72 N.Y.S.3d 918 (2018), and leave to appeal was denied by the New York State Court of Appeals on August 6, 2018, see People v. Taylor, 32 N.Y.3d 941, 109 N.E.3d 1168 (2018), reconsideration denied, 32 N.Y.3d 1178, 121 N.E.3d 243 (2019).

In Taylor's Petition and his two petitions for a writ of certiorari, which he incorporates in the instant Petition, he raises two overlapping grounds for relief under the Fourth Amendment, arguing that state court (1) should have suppressed historical cell site location information (“CSLI”) evidence that was obtained without a warrant and in violation of the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), where police investigators made an exigent circumstances request for CSLI based on a false statement of exigency; (2) failed to apply the Supreme Court's June 22, 2018 decision Carpenter v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 2206 (2018), to his case; and (3) that he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because, following Carpenter, counsel did not move to reargue the Appellate Division's CSLI ruling. ECF No. 1 at 5, 7; ECF No. 1-1 at 8, 13-20; ECF No. 1-2 at 8-11, 13 (ineffective assistance).

Respondent answered the Petition, arguing that Taylor's claims are without merit and/or not cognizable on habeas review. ECF No. 16. Petitioner filed a memorandum of law in reply to Respondent's opposition. ECF No. 26.

II. Background

A. Underlying Facts

Taylor's conviction stems from an incident on July 14, 2013, when a mother and daughter were found deceased inside their neighbor's home in Sodus, New York. They had been pet sitting for the neighbor and had gone to the house that day to feed the animal. Several fires had been set inside the home, and items belonging to the neighbor and the victims were missing. Using cell

2

site location information (“CSLI”), police officers located the victims' cell phones in a bag in Rochester, New York. The same bag contained a receipt for a purchase made using an electronic benefits card in the name of Taylor's live-in girlfriend. A vehicle matching the description of Plaintiff's registered vehicle, a “dark-colored Mercury Mountaineer” was seen in the driveway of the Sodus residence shortly before the time that the victims entered the house. See Taylor, 158 A.D.3d at 1096-97.

Police officers filed an “Exigent Circumstances Form” with Taylor's cell phone company, seeking historical CSLI for his cell phone number from July 14 to July 18, 2013. ECF No. 16-3 at 337 (AT&T Exigent Circumstances Forms); ECF No. 16-5 at 130-31. The CSLI revealed that Taylor's cell phone was located in Sodus at the time of the crime, and search warrants for Taylor's vehicle and home were obtained. ECF No. 16-5 at 132. Police officers found items taken from the Sodus residence inside Taylor's home and later determined that the blood found on those items matched the DNA profile of one of the two victims. See Taylor, 158 A.D.3d at 1097. Blood matching the DNA profiles of the victims was also found on a laundry basket inside Taylor's home and inside his vehicle. Id.

B. State Court Proceedings

Taylor was charged by grand jury indictment with four counts of murder in the first degree, two counts of burglary in the first degree, arson in the second degree, and burglary in the third degree. ECF No. 16-2 at 352-55.

1. Suppression Motion and Hearing

Taylor moved in Wayne County Court to challenge the sufficiency of the search warrants, citing several grounds, including that “some of the information set forth in the warrant applications was obtained illegally.” Id. at 390. Taylor asserted, in pertinent part, “that the investigator did not

3

obtain a court order or a warrant for the cellular records of [Taylor's] cell phone. These were obtained based upon a request to AT&T which lacks the necessary proof of emergency circumstances required by 18 U.S.C. Section 2702(b)(8) and (c)(4).” Id. “Mr. Taylor has a privacy interest in his cell phone communications and records which is protected against seizure and search by the Federal and New York State Constitutions.” Id. at 390-91.

A suppression hearing was held on October 18 and November 7, 2013. ECF No. 16-5 at 15-166, 193-201. Investigator Eric Hurd testified that, on the morning of July 18, 2013, he prepared an “Exigent Circumstances form . . . and sent [it] to AT&T” seeking information from July 14 to July 18, 2013. Id. at 127, 130-31. The form “made pursuant to the language at the bottom of the form which authorizes under a federal statute the release of communication or record information to a government entity under certain circumstances.” Id. at 127. The basis of the request requires a “good faith” belief “that an emergency involving danger or death or serious physical injury to another person requires disclosure without delay.” Id. The CSLI that Hurd obtained pursuant to the Exigent Circumstances form was included in the warrant application for Taylor's cellular phone. Id. at 132. This information showed that Taylor's cellular phone was utilized in Sodus during the time of the murders. Id. Police also had “a tracking device . . . up and going” on Taylor at the time of Hurd's CSLI request because they were preparing to take custody of him later that day. Id. at 132-33. Hurd testified, “if this turned into a manhunt type of thing where [Taylor] fled, we were going to utilize [the tracking device] to keep location on him.” Id. at 133.

In his post-suppression hearing memorandum of law, Taylor argued that AT&T CSLI records related to his cell phone number were illegally obtained because Inv. Hurd did not provide a warrant or court order to the cell phone provider. ECF No. 16-2 at 431. Hurd instead submitted

4

his request under 18 U.S.C. 2702(c)(4), “which allows a cell phone provider to divulge records to a government entity if the provider ‘in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death, or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay of information relating to the emergency.'” Id. at 431-32. Taylor continued to argue: “No facts were presented to AT&T on which it could be determined whether in fact Mr. Taylor was attempting to avoid surveillance. Significantly there was no statement that there was any future danger to anyone or any emergency.” ECF No. 16-3 at 1. The People responded that (1) Investigator Crowley observed Taylor driving away from his Rochester, New York home in his vehicle, which was observed at the crime scene just prior to the murders, and (2) Taylor avoided police surveillance, causing Crowley to stop following Taylor for police safety. Id. at 52, 56, 61; see also ECF No. 16-2 at 9 (surveillance on July 17, 2013). The People further argued that Taylor did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in his CSLI and that even if there was a statutory violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2702, suppression would not be warranted. ECF No. 16-3 at 57-64, 75-76.

Wayne County Court issued an order denying suppression of the AT&T records obtained by Inv. Hurd's exigent circumstances form request to the cell service provider. Id. at 176-78, 180. The court found, among other things, that “Investigator Hurd and the State Police . . . reasonably infer[red] that the suspect committed the murders and posed a danger if not successfully taken into custody . . . in a timely manner. The investigation involved a brutal double homicide.” Id. at 178. “Further that even if there was a statutory violation, the exclusionary rule is generally non-applicable to said violations.” Id. At his Wayne County Court jury trial, Taylor was convicted of four counts of murder in the first degree, two counts of burglary in the first degree, and arson in the second degree, and acquitted of burglary in the third degree. ECF No. 16-2 at 350.

5

2. Appellate Proceedings

On direct appeal, Taylor's appellate counsel contended that the lower court erred by refusing to suppress data regarding his cell phone that was obtained without a warrant. ECF No. 16-3 at 278, 308-20. Appellate counsel further asserted that the lower court's decision “was incorrect in light of the Court of Appeals' decision in People v Weaver” (expectation of privacy in GPS data) and “the Supreme Court's decision in Riley v California” (warrant required for search of cell phone). Id. at 310-14. Taylor submitted a pro se supplemental brief addressing an...