From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Garner v. U.S.

U.S.
Jan 24, 2005
543 U.S. 1100 (2005)

Summary

holding that “pinging” the defendant's cell phone to gather cell site location data did not violate the Fourth Amendment because agents could have obtained the same information by following the defendant's car

Summary of this case from United States v. White

Opinion

No. 04-5052.

January 24, 2005.


Case below, 355 F.3d 942.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 738, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2005).


Summaries of

Garner v. U.S.

U.S.
Jan 24, 2005
543 U.S. 1100 (2005)

holding that “pinging” the defendant's cell phone to gather cell site location data did not violate the Fourth Amendment because agents could have obtained the same information by following the defendant's car

Summary of this case from United States v. White

reasoning that federal agents' action in calling defendant's cell phone and hanging up before it rang in order to "ping" defendant's physical location was not search under Fourth Amendment, as it was possible for any member of public to view defendant's car

Summary of this case from Sims v. State
Case details for

Garner v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:Herman E. GARNER, III, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES

Court:U.S.

Date published: Jan 24, 2005

Citations

543 U.S. 1100 (2005)
125 S. Ct. 1050

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Benford

The Suarez-Blanca court noted that the issue of cell-site data has complexities. For example, the situation…

United States v. White

As with Skinner's cell phone tracking data, “ ‘there [was] no indication that the beeper was used in any way…