United States v. Powell
| Citation | 943 F.Supp.2d 759 |
| Decision Date | 03 May 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 12–cr–20052. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Carlos POWELL, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Dawn N. Ison, Julie A. Beck, Steven P. Cares, U.S. Attorney's Office, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff.
N.C. Deday LaRene, LaRene & Kriger, Tanisha M. Davis, Robert F. Kinney, III, David R. Cripps, Suzanna Kostovski, Detroit, MI, David A. Nacht, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, Ann Arbor, MI, Jeffery A. Taylor, Sterling Heights, MI, for Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUPPRESS BY DEFENDANTS CARLOS POWELL(D–1), ERIC POWELL (D–2), EARNEST PROGE (D–5), TOBIAS PROGE (D–6), TAMIKA TURNER (D–8), MARGARITA DE VALLEJO (D–10), BENNY WHIGHAM (D–11), AND DONALD WILSON (D–12) (docket no. 74)
This is a criminal drug prosecution. Defendants are charged with various drug dealing, firearms, and money laundering offenses. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846; 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1) and 1956. The government contends that the defendants operated a large scale drug trafficking ring in Detroit and, among other things, imported large quantities of cocaine and heroin into the city.
In April 2012, eight of the fourteen defendants filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence and Request for an Evidentiary Hearing. See Mot. to Supress, ECF No. 74; see also Notices of Joinder/Concurrence, ECF Nos. 81, 87, 88, 94. The Court held a hearing on the motion on December 18, 2012. On January 4, 2013, the Court issued an order (1) making a preliminary finding that defendants Carlos Powell and Eric Powell had standing to contest admission of the evidence challenged in the motion; (2) denying the motion as to the challenged pen-register and trap-and-trace evidence; and (3) ordering an evidentiary hearing regarding federal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Espudo
...the government from obtaining it solely on the authority of the Pen/Trap statute. See United States v. Powell, 943 F.Supp.2d 759, 776–77, 2013 WL 1876761, at *13 (E.D.Mich. May 3, 2013) (“[T]he information sought here is clearly location data and the government therefore cannot acquire it s......
-
United States v. Caraballo
...to obtain location data without installing any device in or on the cell phone itself. See United States v. Powell, 943 F.Supp.2d 759, 777, 2013 WL 1876761, at *13 (E.D.Mich. May 3, 2013) (“Moreover, a cell phone is not a ‘tracking device’ as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 3117. First, a cell phone ......
-
United States v. Baker
...real-time cellphone tracking. See U.S. v. Griggs, 2021 WL 3087985, at *2 (E.D. Mich. July 22, 2021) (citing United States v. Powell, 943 F. Supp. 2d 759, 778 (E.D. Mich. 2013) ) ("[A] specific showing is required to establish probable cause when the government seeks a warrant for long-term ......
-
United States v. White
...cellular tracking data constituted a search that must be justified by probable cause and a warrant. United States v. Powell, 943 F.Supp.2d 759, 770 (E.D.Mich.2013) (Stephen J. Murphy, J.). Other courts have concurred. See United States v. Davis, 754 F.3d 1205, 1217 (11th Cir.2014) (“[C]ell ......
-
Hiding in Plain Sight: a Fourth Amendment Framework for Analyzing Government Surveillance in Public
...of their phones most of the time, with 12% admitting that they even use their phones in the shower."). 68. United States v. Powell, 943 F. Supp. 2d 759, 780 (E.D. Mich. 2013); see also Riley, 134 S. Ct. at 2490 (observing cell phone records "can reconstruct someone's specific movements down......