[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-11747

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT DANIEL SOLOVE, 

Defendant -Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 9:20-cr-80025-DMM-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-11747 Date Filed: 01/18/2022 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 21-11747

Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Daniel Solove appeals his convictions for two counts 

of producing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a); 

two counts of distributing child pornography, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2); and one count of possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress his internet protocol 

(“IP”) address and e-mail address, obtained without a warrant from 

the subscriber records of chat messaging application Kik. On appeal, he argues that IP and e-mail addresses fall into the exception 

to the third-party doctrine established by Carpenter v. United 

States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018), because they constitute cell-site location information (“CSLI”) for which a warrant is required. 

The Fourth Amendment guarantees individuals the right to 

be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. Under 

the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure is subject to exclusion, as is “evidence later 

discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality or fruit of the 

poisonous tree.” Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 804 (1984) 

(quotation marks omitted). To suppress evidence based on Fourth 

Amendment violations, “a claimant has the burden of proving 

(1) that the search was unlawful and (2) that the claimant had a legitimate expectation of privacy.” United States v. McKennon, 814 

USCA11 Case: 21-11747 Date Filed: 01/18/2022 Page: 2 of 4
21-11747 Opinion of the Court 3

F.2d 1539, 1542 (11th Cir. 1987). This expectation of privacy must 

be subjective to the defendant and one that society recognizes as 

reasonable. United States v. Trader, 981 F.3d 961, 967 (11th Cir. 

2020), cert. denied, No. 21-5323 (Oct. 4, 2021). Under the thirdparty doctrine, an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information conveyed to third parties, even if they only revealed that information for a limited purpose. United States v. 

Gayden, 977 F.3d 1146, 1151 (11th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, No. 

20-7896 (Oct. 4, 2021).

In Carpenter, however, the Supreme Court held that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in CSLI, such that 

the government must obtain a warrant to obtain CSLI records 

from cell phone carriers. Carpenter ̧ 138 S. Ct. at 2223. The Court 

found that the “unique nature of cell phone location records” subjected them to Fourth Amendment protection, noting that cell 

phones automatically connect to the nearest cell tower several 

times per minute without any action on the part of the user. Id. at 

2217. The Court expressly held, however, that its decision was “a 

narrow one” and did not impact “business records that might incidentally reveal location information.” Id. 

In Trader, we held that the Carpenter exception to the thirdparty doctrine does not extend to e-mail and IP addresses. 981 F.3d 

at 967-68. We rejected Trader’s argument that IP and e-mail address constitute CLSI, because they are neither location records nor 

cell phone records. Id. at 968-69. IP addresses, we explained, only 

reveal an individual’s location indirectly, if the government 

USCA11 Case: 21-11747 Date Filed: 01/18/2022 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 21-11747

examines an internet company’s business records to see where a 

particular network is registered. Id. at 968. We stated that both IP 

addresses and e-mail addresses, further, are associated with any device that can access a wireless internet network, including computers and tablets, rather than cell phones specifically. Id. at 969. 

Under our prior precedent rule, we are bound to follow the 

binding precedent of this Court unless and until it is overruled by 

this Court sitting en banc or the Supreme Court. United States v. 

Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir. 2008). “The prior 

panel precedent rule applies regardless of whether the later panel 

believes the prior panel’s opinion to be correct, and there is no exception to the rule where the prior panel failed to consider arguments raised before a later panel.” United States v. Gillis, 938 F.3d 

1181, 1198 (11th Cir. 2019).

Solove’s claim that law enforcement needed a warrant to 

obtain his e-mail and IP address is foreclosed by our holding in 

Trader, to which we are bound under the prior precedent rule. For 

this reason, we affirm Solove’s convictions. 

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 21-11747 Date Filed: 01/18/2022 Page: 4 of 4