Opinion ID: 152284
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Phone Records

Text: At trial, the government introduced, as Exhibit 12, Sprint Nextel phone records that Jadlowe claims should have been suppressed because they were the fruit of the government's illegal 22 In his motion to suppress, Jadlowe stated: The defendant also moves to suppress any evidence seized from his person on November 4th, 2005, including a cell phone. His affidavit in support of the motion states that, [o]n information and belief, the government intends to use evidence seized from the property and from my person against me at trial. -20- search of his homes on November 5. Exhibit 12 included information about the 1022 phone, which was the one seized incident to Jadlowe's arrest, and referred to a second phone with the number (508) 982-1964 (the 1964 phone). Phone records related to the 1964 phone had been seized from Jadlowe's residence, but the court suppressed them in ruling that the search of the homes was not supported by probable cause. Simmons testified, however, that the government had relied on those improperly seized records concerning the 1964 phone when it issued a single subpoena to Sprint for information about the two phone numbers. It appears undisputed that the government's only information about the 1964 phone derived from the illegal search and, hence, no evidence about that phone number should have been admitted at trial. The information in Exhibit 12 about the 1022 phone, however, derived from a court-authorized pen register of Gonsalves's cell phone in August 2005 and, as such, was not a fruit of the illegal search of Jadlowe's home.23 Technically, therefore, Exhibit 12 contained both admissible and inadmissible evidence, and Jadlowe may be correct that the court erred in allowing it into evidence. But any such error was certainly harmless. With respect to the 1964 phone, 23 The pen register identified a phone with an IMSI number – which is like a serial number – of 316010102274660. The Sprint records connected that IMSI number to the 1022 phone and to the phone's use as a Direct Connect device with the number 183. -21- Exhibit 12 says only that [n]o records were found . . . during the requested time period. The bulk of the information on the exhibit relates to the 1022 phone. The document identifies the 1022 account holder as Marc Souza, whose listed date of birth is the same as Jadlowe's. That section of the document also links the IMSE number from the pen register with the 1022 phone seized from Jadlowe, thereby linking him with intercepted calls to and from Gonsalves and Ferreira.24 Hence, the damaging information in the exhibit was all lawfully derived. Jadlowe attempts to sidestep this critical dichotomy between the admissible and inadmissible information in Exhibit 12 by arguing that the document implicitly suggests that the two phone numbers are linked. Even if that were true, it would not matter. The exhibit in effect said nothing about the 1964 number, there was no substantive testimony about it, and the government did not rely on it. We agree with the government that, even if admission of Exhibit 12 were error, it did not influence the verdict and was 24 Each of the two sections of the document, which are separated by a line of asterisks, begins with a listing of Request Type, followed by the explanation Subscription Info (Basic). Each lists a Date Range and Subject Number. The top section identifies the number as 5089821964 and the bottom section lists 316010102274660 as the number. The top section then has a listing for Comments, which is followed by the [n]o records were found entry. The bottom section lists an account number, subscriber name, address, comments (the comment is that the account was established in June 2005), and a variety of other information, including the full 1022 phone number and the Direct Connect number. -22- therefore harmless. See, e.g., United States v. Hicks, 575 F.3d 130, 143 (1st Cir. 2009).