Opinion ID: 2787038
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: PLI Warrants

Text: The first suppression issue on appeal involves the three warrants authorizing the government to obtain prospective PLI from Joe Lenzie Turner’s and Dwayne Woods’s phones. Corey Turner moved to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to these warrants, and the district court denied the motion on the merits. Both in the district court and on appeal, the government asserts there is no need to address the 4 “Precise Location Information” has not been defined by the parties, though it is used in the court orders in this case to refer to the physical location of the phone based on longitude and latitude or other similar points of reference. 5 The Honorable Lewis M. Blanton, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, now retired. 6 The Honorable John A. Ross, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -4- merits of Corey Turner’s motion because he lacks standing to challenge the seizure of the evidence.7 “To contest the validity of a search, a person must have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched.” United States v. Randolph, 628 F.3d 1022, 1026 (8th Cir. 2011). “Fourth Amendment rights are personal and may not be vicariously asserted.” Id. (quotation omitted). With regard to the content of cell phones, “an accused must first establish that he personally has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the object that was searched.” United States v. Stringer, 739 F.3d 391, 396 (8th Cir. 2014). Corey Turner has failed to establish that he has standing to challenge the issuance of the warrants for PLI for phones belonging to Joe Lenzie Turner and Dwayne Woods. Corey Turner does not assert that he owned, possessed, or used either of these cell phones; nor does he describe any other legitimate expectation of privacy in these phones or in the PLI obtained from them.8 Without any argument to 7 Though the district court denied the motion on other grounds, the government raised the issue of standing both before the district court and on appeal. The district court declined to address Corey Turner’s standing to challenge the PLI warrants in this case, but it is a “‘well-settled principle’ that a district court may be affirmed on any ground supported by the record,” particularly where the issue has not been waived by the parties. United States v. Lucas, 499 F.3d 769, 779 n.5 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Pierson, 219 F.3d 803, 807 (8th Cir. 2000)). We therefore address the issue of standing on appeal. 8 In Stringer, we found the defendant lacked standing to challenge a search of a cell phone that was found in his car but belonged to another person. 739 F.3d at 396. The cell phone contained evidence that incriminated the defendant. Id. But, similar to this case, the defendant in Stringer did not argue that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of the third party’s cell phone, and thus, we concluded, he lacked standing to challenge the search. Id. In this case, law enforcement obtained PLI for Joe Lenzie Turner’s and Dwayne Woods’s phones, not -5- support the conclusion that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in these phones or their location, Corey Turner has failed to meet his burden to establish standing to challenge the seizure of this evidence. See Stringer, 739 F.3d at 396.