United States v. Medina
| Docket Number | 21-cr-62-JJM-PAS |
| Decision Date | 23 January 2024 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. EDGAR MEDINA; ALIJAH PARSONS; ANDRES GARAY; IRVING MEDINA; and RONALD HALL, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island |
John J. McConnell, Jr., United States District Chief Judge.
Edgar Medina, Alijah Parsons, Andres Garay, Irving Medina, and Ronald Hall are accused of kidnapping a United States Postal Service (“USPS”) employee as part of an alleged conspiracy to distribute cocaine. ECF No. 81. Before the Court are six Motions to Suppress cell phone data collected as part of the Government's year-long investigation.[1] The Court has been asked to evaluate a tower dump order (ECF No. 137), a warrant authorizing a search of five cell phones recovered during the suspects' initial arrest (ECF No. 134), three warrants authorizing home searches that resulted in the search of five more cell phones (ECF Nos. 135, 131), and multiple warrants for historical cell-site location information (“CSLI”) (ECF Nos. 138, 215).[2] The Court has also been asked to reconsider Edgar Medina's Motion to Suppress the warrants to search his home, car, and person. ECF No. 238.
I. BACKGROUND[3]
On June 1, 2021, a USPS employee was abducted at gunpoint. Two masked individuals-later alleged to be Edward Medina and Ronald Hall-kidnapped the employee and questioned him about a package that had been delivered empty. The employee was later released without incident. ECF Nos. 1, 81. The United States Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”) launched an investigation to track and identify individuals connected to the kidnapping.
The initial inquiry was a study in “gumshoe” detective work, consisting of package intercepts, address queries, and conventional surveillance techniques. ECF No 1'1. Based on queries of the initial package, USPIS identified other packages that had been mailed from Puerto Rico with false names and addresses and located the car that had allegedly been used to abduct the postal worker. Id. at 3-10. USPIS intercepted three of the packages and obtained warrants to search them. All three tested positive for cocaine. Id. at 10-11.
Law enforcement set up an undercover operation and arrested Edgar Medina, Ronald Hall, and Andres Garay when they tried to collect these packages. Id. at 1115. A motor vehicle inventory of the cars they were driving revealed two black expandable batons, defense spray, a Taser, three black surgical masks, and a winter hat that matched the description given by the USPS employee.[4] Id. at 15. The Government obtained a search warrant for Mr. Medina's home, which revealed a printout of a USPS tracking number for the original parcel with three $100 bills and a handwritten note that stated: “Need full name Physical + vehicle description of carrier(s) on this very date You will be compensated someone will meet you on Friday or Saturday.” Id. at 16.
Edgar Medina, Andres Garay, and Ronald Hall were indicted for kidnapping, conspiracy, attempt, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. ECF Nos. 10, 30, and 81.
Concurrently, investigators pursued a wide-ranging inquiry into the Defendants' cell phones. ECF No. 175 at 4'14. The cell phone investigation began with a Tower Dump Order and a geofence warrant seeking CSLI and Google Location History for all users in the area. ECF No. 177-4 at 22-32 (21-sw256-LDA); ECF No. 177-1 at 72-103 (21-sw260-LDA). The Government then conducted a forensic search of five cell phones recovered during the initial arrests. ECF No. 1771 at 162-178 (21-sw274-PAS). These searches revealed incriminating text messages to Alijah Parsons and Irving Medina, who were later indicted as coconspirators.[5] ECF No. 175 at 7; ECF Nos. 30, 81.
Based on these text messages-as well as phone calls, handwriting samples, and video surveillance that purportedly showed Alijah Parsons mailing fraudulent packages-the Government requested three warrants for Alijah Parsons to search real-time CSLI (seeking location data) for three cell phones believed to be in her possession. ECF No. 177-1 at 218'290 (21'sw303'LDA and 21-sw304'LDA); ECF No. 177-2 at 2'37 (21'sw305'LDA). This evidence was used to justify a search of Ms. Parsons' home and person. ECF No. 177'2 at 39'150 (21'sw321-PAS and 21-sw'322'PAS). Multiple cell phones were recovered and forensically searched. ECF No. 177-4 at 59'62. The Government then obtained warrants for historical CSLI for four phones linked to Ms. Parsons, also seeking location data. ECF No. 177'1 at 9' 69 (21-sw-255-PAS); ECF No. 177-2 at 198-218, 289'305 (21-sw526'LDA and 22-sw 197-PAS); ECF No. 177'4 at 2-20 (22-sw'210-PAS); ECF No. 175 at 9.
A similar investigation was conducted for Irving Medina, with warrants issued for real-time CSLI (21'sw377'LDA, 21-sw378'LDA, and 21-sw433-LDA) and a cell-site simulator to locate his phones (21-sw427-LDA). ECF No. 148-1 at 10-12. Information obtained from these searches-as well as incriminating text messages, phone records, and CSLI obtained from the tower dump-was used to support a warrant to search Irving Medina's home and person. ECF No. 148'1 at 613 (21'SW'438'PAS). Two more phones were recovered and forensically searched. Id. at 22-30; ECF No. 148-2 at 2. The Government then obtained warrants for historical CSLI for Irving Medina. ECF No. 150 at 2'53 (21-sw428-LDA); ECF No. 150-1 at 2-45, ECF No. 150-2 at 1-54 (21-sw554-PAS).
With ten phones in hand, the Government requested a second geofence warrant five months after the first. ECF No. 177-2 at 232-287 (21-sw556-PAS). The Government also requested ten warrants for Google Account Information seeking location history and content-based records (phone records, emails, photos, address lists, video, and audio recordings) for the phones that had been seized pursuant to earlier warrants. See, e.g., ECF No. 177-2 at 307-334 (22-swl99-PAS).
All told, there were fifty-eight warrants issued in the investigation, fourteen of which-plus a Tower Dump Order under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d)-have been challenged in Motions to Suppress. ECF No. 176 at 5-6 n.l. Taken together, these warrants offer a sobering tour of modern electronic surveillance techniques. Tower dumps, geofences, cell-site simulators, warrants seeking real-time and historical CSLL these techniques are not only no longer new, but also are now a standard part of an investigative repertoire.[6] ECF No. 137 at 20.
In light of law enforcement's reliance on these techniques, courts are increasingly asked to evaluate the rights a person has in their cell phone, which contains near-infinite storage capacity and may contain “[t]he sum of an individual's private life,” and to consider how these rights may be protected without knee-capping innovative law enforcement technologies out of the gate. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 394 (2014). .
Defendants ask the Court to consider these issues: 1) whether the Supreme Court's holding in Carpenter v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 2206 (2018) establishes a reasonable expectation of privacy in short-term CSLI; 2) in the alternative, whether Defendants have a property-based interest such that a warrant is required for a tower dump; 3) whether the affidavits supplying probable[7] cause were properly incorporated; and 4) whether the Government's forensic phone searches lacked particularity.[8] ECF Nos. 134 and 137. Separately, the Court evaluates whether the Government had probable cause to search Defendants' homes, persons, and historical CSLI. ECF Nos. 131, 135, 138, 215, and 238.
The Court examines each of these issues in turn.
The Fourth Amendment protects “persons, houses, papers, and effects” from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” A warrant permitting a search or seizure may not issue “but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,” and must “particularly describle] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const, amend. IV.
III. DISCUSSION
Alijah Parsons was charged as a co-conspirator and initially moved to suppress 21-sw256-LDA (hereinafter the “Tower Dump Order”).[9] ECF Nos. 137, 186. She argues that under Carpenter, cell phone users have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their location data as revealed through short-term CSLI. ECF No. 137 at 1. The Government argues that Ms. Parsons lacks standing and that the Tower Dump Order was properly issued. ECF No. 175 at 2.
This argument is now moot as to Ms. Parsons, as the Government has said that they do not plan to introduce this information against her. ECF Nos. 240, 241. The Government acknowledged, however, that evidence from the Tower Dump Order was incorporated into later warrants against Edgar Medina, Irving Medina, and Andres Garay, who have since joined and challenge on the same grounds.[10] ECF Nos. 240, 242, 245, and 247. The sole issue is whether a search occurred, and if so, whether this evidence should be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.
The Court begins by exploring whether cell phone users have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their short-term CSLI.
The Fourth Amendment “seeks to secure ‘the privacies of life' against ‘arbitrary power'” by “placting] obstacles in the way of a too permeating police surveillance.” United States v Moore-Bush, 36 F.4th 320, 320-21 (1st Cir. 2022) (Barron, J., concurring) (internal citations and quotations omitted). To assert a Fourth Amendment right in their persons or effects, a defendant must show that they have a “reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched and in relation to the items seized.” United States v. Aguirre, 839 F.2d 854, 856 (1st Cir. 1988). They can do this...
To continue reading
Request your trial