United States v. Patrick’s Empirical Analysis
842 F.3d 540 · 2016
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3123 (§ 301 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3127 (§ 301 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)
Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · United States v. Leon · Franks v. Delaware · Payton v. New York · Jones v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Cell-site simulators ... function by transmitting as a cell tower. In response to the signals emitted by the simulator, cellular devices in the proximity of the device identify the simulator as the most attractive cell tower in the area and thus transmit signals to the simulator that identify the device in the same way that they would with a networked tower. A cell-site simulator receives and uses an industry standard unique identifying number assigned by a device manufacturer or cellular network provider. When used to locate a known cellular device, a cell-site simulator initially receives the unique identifying number from multiple devices in the vicinity of the simulator. Once the cell-site simulator identifies the specific cellular device for which it is looking, it will obtain the signaling information relating only to that particular phone. When used to identify an unknown device, the cell-site simulator obtains signaling information from non-target devices in the target's vicinity for the limited purpose of distinguishing the target device. By transmitting as a cell tower, cell-site simulators acquire the identifying information from cellular devices. This identifying information is limited, however. Cell-site simulators provide only the relative signal strength and general direction of a subject cellular telephone; they do not function as a GPS locator, as they do not obtain or download any location information from the device or its applications. Moreover, cell-site ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Questions about whether use of a [cell site] simulator is a search, if so whether a warrant authorizing this method is essential, and whether in a particular situation a [cell site] simulator is a reasonable means of executing a warrant, have yet to be addressed by any United States court of appeals. We think it best to withhold full analysis until these issues control the outcome of a concrete case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Copes“device (often called a Stingray, the trademark of one brand) pretends to be a cellphone access point and, by emitting an especially strong signal, induces nearby cell phones to connect and reveal their direction relative to the device.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.