Given this new, fertile field of litigation has appeared regarding modern technology and the third-party doctrine, it would be wise to follow up and see exactly what the Sixth Circuit will do in Carpenter’s case on remand. We will do so on this blog.
That being said, a number of other cases were pending grants of certiorari in front of the United States Supreme Court at the time of the Carpenter decision. As is typical when the U.S. Supreme Court decides a case, the Court granted certiorari in a number of cases and then remanded them back to the lower courts for reconsideration in light of the Carpenter decision.
These decisions, once made, should be tracked and catalogued (pun intended) as well.
Here is a list of the cases that were sent back for which I am aware. If I left one out, please let me know at billwolf@wolfcriminallaw.com
Zanders v. State, 2017 Ind. LEXIS 339, 73 N.E.3d 178 (Ind., May 4, 2017)
United States v. Chambers, 681 Fed. Appx. 72, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3671 (2d Cir. N.Y., Mar. 1, 2017)
Hankston v. State, 517 S.W.3d 112, 2017 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 379 (Tex. Crim. App., Apr. 12, 2017)
United States v. Thompson, 866 F.3d 1149, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14551 (10th Cir. Kan., Aug. 8, 2017)
United States v. Banks, 706 Fed. Appx. 455, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14554 (10th Cir., Aug. 8, 2017)
Reed v. Virginia, This is from an unpublished decision originally decided by the Court of Appeals of Virginia. A link to that unpublished decision can be found here: https://law.justia.com/cases/virginia/court-of-appeals-unpublished/2016/1305-15-4.html
The next posts will focus on appellate decisions that have come down since the Carpenter decision was handed down in June. Since we’re playing catch up for only (hopefully) a short period of time, I will be presenting the decisions in chronological order starting with the decisions that first came down first.
We’re only going to feature cases that discuss digital issues inherent in privacy and property interests inherent in cases like Carpenter and Riley as well as others. Decisions that mention Carpenter in passing but where these issues play no role in that decision of that case will not be discussed. For example, one of the first post-Carpenter decisions mentioning Carpenter comes from the Rhode Island Supreme Court that noted in a footnote that defense counsel never made a Fourth Amendment challenge to the admission of cell phone site location evidence, citing Carpenter in passing.
I’m confident we can skip that one as well as some others