United States v. Caraballo

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Evidence

EvidenceFourth AmendmentExigent circumstancesCell phone location trackingwarrantless searchcell phone pingingGPS coordinatesreal-time location data

Facts

After police discovered Melissa Barratt's body in a wooded area with a gunshot wound to the back of the head, they suspected homicide and viewed Frank Caraballo as the primary suspect because Barratt had previously told police she feared he would hurt or kill her if he learned she was talking to them. Officers also knew Caraballo was involved in an active drug operation, was believed to have access to firearms, and had contact with undercover officers and confidential informants involved in that investigation. Believing there was an emergency involving danger of death or serious bodily injury, officers asked Sprint to provide real-time GPS location data for Caraballo's phone over less than two hours. The pinging helped officers locate Caraballo, after which they arrested him and recovered evidence he sought to suppress.

Issue

Whether officers violated the Fourth Amendment by obtaining Caraballo's real-time cell-phone GPS location from Sprint without a warrant. More specifically, the question was whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless pinging of his phone.

Rule

A warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when exigent circumstances require officers to act without delay. The exigency inquiry turns on whether the facts, viewed objectively and under the totality of the circumstances, would lead a reasonable, experienced officer to believe there was an urgent need to render aid or take action; relevant considerations include the Dorman/MacDonald factors, the availability of time to secure a warrant, the degree of intrusion on privacy, whether the officers' conduct was plausibly consistent with existing law, and whether the search was strictly circumscribed to the exigency.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Police in Albany, New York find a bookstore clerk shot execution-style behind her shop. Weeks earlier, she had told detectives that Owen Pike, an armed meth distributor, said he would kill her if he learned she was speaking with police; detectives also know Pike recently dealt with undercover officers and two confidential informants. The carrier says an emergency request can produce immediate phone-location pings, but warrant-based requests usually sit for several days.

If detectives obtain Pike’s real-time phone location without a warrant and use it for 90 minutes solely to find and stop his car, is the search most likely reasonable?

Explanation. The majority held that exigent circumstances can justify warrantless real-time phone pinging when, viewed objectively and under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable experienced officer would believe urgent action is needed. Strong considerations include the violent nature of the offense, reason to believe the suspect is armed, case-specific danger to undercover officers or informants, the practical delay in getting useful carrier compliance through a warrant, and the limited scope of the intrusion. Here, as in the governing rule, the threat is not a generalized fear but a specific inference that those connected to the investigation may be in imminent danger, and the search is strictly circumscribed. (Derived from United States v. Caraballo (n.d.).)