Opinion ID: 4544635
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cell Tower Data

Text: Detective Calhoun testified that, in the course of his investigation following Muller’s arrest, he obtained a court order giving him access to historical cell site information for the three phones that he had recovered—namely, Hamilton’s, Brundige’s, and Muller’s—including detailed usage records for all three phones.2 He explained that the historical cell site information did not provide him with a 2 We note that in Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court held that “the Government must generally obtain a warrant supported by probable cause before acquiring” cell-site location information. 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2221 (2018). In the proceedings before the district court, the government conceded that it had not applied for a warrant, and that Detective Calhoun had instead sought a court order under state law—which did not require a probable cause showing—to obtain the records. The district court ultimately concluded that, because the court order was issued prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Carpenter, the good-faith exception to the Fourth Amendment applied. Muller does not challenge in this respect the district court’s decision denying his motion to suppress. Accordingly, we conclude that any Carpenter issue in the district court’s order is abandoned because it has not been raised on appeal. United States v. Mesa, 247 F.3d 1165, 1171 n.6 (11th Cir. 2001). 11 Case: 19-11783 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 12 of 25 precise GPS location for the phones at any given time, but only told him which cell tower the phones used at various points of the night in question. He nonetheless concluded that he was able to loosely corroborate Williams’s and Hamilton’s narratives with respect to their locations based on the historical cell site information. Later in the trial, Noel DeLeon, an engineer for AT&T, testified. He explained that, whenever a phone was powered on, or “queued up,” it continually searched for the best quality of signal that AT&T provided—which could be from a number of cell towers that were maintained around the area. As the cellphone looked for the best signal, the cell towers communicated back with the cell phone and indicated which tower to “ping” off, which is the tower that would provide the best signal. He explained that AT&T kept historical cell site records, which were generated when a phone call, text message, or data session was initiated on the network. He identified records kept in the ordinary course of AT&T business for subscriber Donna Hamilton with a phone number ending in 7123 (Hamilton’s number), which contained detailed records for calls, texts (without the content), and cell site information. He identified several phone calls between the 7123 12 Case: 19-11783 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 13 of 25 number and an 8646 number 3 at around 10:30 p.m. on November 9, a 911 call from the 7123 number around 4:00 a.m. on November 10, and the location of the cell towers used —through its corresponding latitude and longitude. He also identified several text messages between the 7123 and 8646 numbers between 10:15 p.m. and 10:32 p.m. on November 9, and the location of the tower used. He identified phone records for a phone with a number ending in 8139 (Brundige’s number). He identified data usage by that phone between 10:22 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. and which cell towers were utilized. He explained that cell towers were connected to each other, so, as a phone moved across the network—for example, as its user drives down a road—the towers will track the phone and pass it off to the “next-best serving tower.” Officers were able to obtain the historical cell site data and plot the coordinates of the cell tower on the map. On cross-examination, DeLeon reiterated that the coordinates are for the cell tower, not the actual location of the phone utilizing the tower. He could not determine the exact location of the phone through the historical cell site data. Then, Dave Bisplinghoff, an investigator for the local state attorney, testified. Bisplinghoff said that he used Muller’s, Hamilton’s, and Brundige’s cell phone records to map out the location of the cellphone towers that these three 3 Testimony from Kenneth Lecesne, a records custodian for T-Mobile, identified the 8646 number as belonging to Muller. 13 Case: 19-11783 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 14 of 25 phones were using on November 9 between 10:14 and 10:32 PM. He explained that the cell tower that Muller’s phone used was less than one mile from his home, and that between 10:21 and 10:31 PM, Muller’s, Hamilton’s, and Brundige’s phones were all utilizing this cell tower. Similarly, between 11:07 and 11:17 PM, Hamilton’s cell phone used the cell tower closest to his home, and between 11:56 PM and 5:16 AM, Hamilton’s cell phone used the cell tower closest to Williams’s home. Between 10:43 PM and 5:27 AM, Brundige’s cell phone used a cell tower closest to Williams’s home, as well. Bisplinghoff reiterated that the cell site information was only for the location of the cell tower, not the phones, and that cell phones are constantly looking for the strongest signal, which is usually, though not always, the closest tower. On crossexamination, Bisplinghoff conceded that he could not tell based on the information which side of the tower the cell phones were hitting off of, and that a cell phone may well use a tower further away than a closer one. Muller objected to Bisplinghoff’s testimony, along with the maps of the cell towers that the government sought to admit. He argued that the government failed to lay the proper foundation as to whether Bisplinghoff was qualified to testify about the cell site information, and that the government needed to present an expert. The government responded that the proper foundation was laid through DeLeon, who laid out in his testimony the records and the locations of the towers. 14 Case: 19-11783 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 15 of 25 Muller replied that he acquiesced to the introduction of the cell tower locations, but that the exhibits—which ostensibly showed that the cell phones were in a limited area during the night in question—were confusing. The district court overruled Muller’s objection. It concluded that DeLeon adequately explained how cell phones connect with the closest tower and that Muller’s arguments with respect to the location of the cell phones to the towers went to the weight of the evidence, not to admissibility. However, the court admonished the government to be careful with its language to ensure that the maps showed the locations of the towers, not the phones. Muller raises a similar argument on appeal, namely, that the testimony regarding the cell tower information lacked a sufficient foundation. As stated previously, we normally review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, Henderson, 409 F.3d at 1297, which applies when the district court “applies the wrong law, follows the wrong procedure, bases its decision on clearly erroneous facts, or commits a clear error in judgment,” Brown, 415 F.3d at 1266, and we will not reverse an erroneous evidentiary ruling if the error was harmless, Langford, 647 F.3d at 1323. Additionally, we review a district court’s ruling on authentication for abuse of discretion. United States v. Brown, 587 F.3d 1082, 1092 (11th Cir. 2009). 15 Case: 19-11783 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 16 of 25 Under Rule 901(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, “to satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” See also United States v. Lanzon, 639 F.3d 1293, 1301 (11th Cir. 2011) (finding that the testimony of a police detective that participated in the creation of an instant message transcript was sufficient to authenticate the transcript at trial). The government’s burden is not an onerous one; “[t]he proponent need only present enough evidence to make out a prima facie case that the proffered evidence is what it purports to be.” Id. at 1301. A district court, moreover, is given discretion to determine authenticity, and we will not overrule its determination on appeal “absent a showing that there is no competent evidence in the record to support [the district court’s determination].” Id. Based on the record before us, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in this regard. We conclude that a proper foundation was laid and sufficient safeguards were employed to prevent confusion. Several different witnesses explained the nature of the cell tower information—some, like DeLeon, in great detail—and as a result, we are satisfied that the information was properly introduced. We further note that, even if the district court abused its discretion in allowing such evidence, any error would have been harmless. While the cell tower 16 Case: 19-11783 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 17 of 25 information may have been greatly emphasized by the government, we think that it was likely of middling importance to the trial’s ultimate outcome. At best, it merely corroborated Hamilton’s and Williams’s testimony and what they told the police and suggested that no other drug deals took place on the night in question. And at worst, it was marginally relevant information that related to a relatively unimportant aspect of the trial. Accordingly, we affirm in this respect.