Opinion ID: 4533546
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mr. Banks’s Criminal Case

Text: A federal grand jury indicted Mr. Banks on multiple counts of distributing and conspiring to distribute crack cocaine. He joined co-defendants’ motions to suppress the intercepted communications. The motions argued (1) the wiretap orders did not permit the interception of electronic (text message) communications, and (2) investigators impermissibly intercepted his wire communications outside the Eighth Judicial District’s jurisdiction. The district court rejected both arguments. First, the court ruled that investigators reasonably believed the wiretap orders, despite specifying only wire communications, permitted the interception of both text messages and oral communications.3 In particular, the court found an understanding 3 The term “‘wire communication’ means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 2510(1); see also Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-2514(1). An “‘aural transfer’ means a transfer containing the human voice at any point between and including the point of origin and the point of reception[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 2510(18). In contrast, an “‘oral communication’ means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication[.]” Id. § 2510(2). A telephone conversation qualifies as a “wire communication.” See United States v. Axselle, 604 F.2d 1330, 1334 (10th Cir. 1979). An “‘electronic communication’ means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce, but does not include—(A) any wire or oral communication . . . .” Id. § 2510(12); see also Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-2514(11). “[T]ext messages constitute ‘electronic communications’ within the meaning of the Wiretap Act.” United States v. Jones, 451 F. Supp. 2d 71, 75 (D.D.C. 2006), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds sub nom. United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010). 3 between Judge Platt and investigators “that the orders were supposed to authorize interception of electronic [i.e., text] communications.” United States v. Banks and Thompson, 5:13-CR-40060-DDC, 2014 WL 4261344, at  (D. Kan. Aug. 29, 2014). The court thus applied the good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule and refused to suppress the text messages. Id. at  (citing United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 920-22 (1984)). Second, the court “rule[d] that a Kansas state court judge acting under Kansas law has no authority to authorize interception outside the judge’s own judicial district.” ROA, Vol. I at 43. It granted the motion to suppress the extra-territorial communications, but it stated that officers “almost certainly” acted in good faith, “because one would not expect the officers executing the search warrants to have apprehended the subtle, technical jurisdictional defect.” United States v. Banks and Thompson, No. 13-CR40060-DDC, 2015 WL 2401048, at  (D. Kan. May 15, 2015). A jury convicted Mr. Thompson and Mr. Banks on all counts.4 4 We affirmed the convictions. See Thompson, 866 F.3d at 1152; United States v. Banks, 706 F. App’x 455, 460 (10th Cir. 2017). The Supreme Court vacated those decisions and remanded for further consideration in light of Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2217, 2222 (2018). In Carpenter, the Court held that “an individual maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements as captured through [cell service location information].” Because law enforcement relied on such information to prove some of Mr. Thompson’s and Mr. Banks’s communications, we remanded to the district court to determine whether the government presented sufficient evidence absent the information. United States v. Thompson, 740 F. App’x 166, 168 (10th Cir. 2018). 4