Opinion ID: 6351771
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Historical CSLI

Text: The tracking order in this case seems to have granted the government permission to obtain historical CSLI between January 1, 2015, and “thirty (30) days past the date of this Order,” which was entered on January 30, 2015. At oral argument, however, the government clarified that it did not rely on historical CSLI either to find Lewis or to prosecute him for possession with intent to distribute. Indeed, both parties agree that Sprint did not begin sending data to law enforcement until February 3, 2015, the day of his arrest. Because the government did not use historical CSLI or the fruits of such information against Lewis at trial, there is nothing to exclude. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487–88 (1963); Hammond, 996 F.3d at 383 (“[T]here is no need to exclude evidence never admitted at trial or used improperly to obtain additional evidence.”). 2 Not to be outdone, Lewis argues the government forfeited reliance on the good-faith exception by not raising it in the district court. This counterattack is unpersuasive because, when the district court ruled on the motion to suppress in 2017, neither Carpenter nor Curtis had been issued, so there was no basis for raising a good-faith exception argument. 18 No. 21-1614 Moreover, this court has repeatedly held that the goodfaith exception applies to historical CSLI collected pursuant to a § 2703(d) order pre-Carpenter. See Rosario, 5 F.4th at 711– 12; Hammond, 996 F.3d at 386; Curtis, 901 F.3d at 849. The mere act of applying for a § 2703(d) order suggests that Officer Harshman made a good-faith attempt to comply with a thenvalid statute. Cf. United States v. Matthews, 12 F.4th 647, 653 (7th Cir. 2021) (“Although it is the Government’s burden to demonstrate that the officer was acting in objective good faith, an officer’s decision to obtain a warrant is prima facie evidence of his good faith.”). And there is no evidence that Officer Harshman knowingly or recklessly misled the judge or that the affidavit was facially invalid at the time he filed it. United States v. Rees, 957 F.3d 761, 771 (7th Cir. 2020).