n this case, the Defendant was charged with counts of traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct with a person under eighteen years of age; coercion and attempted coercion of a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct; distributing visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct; transferring obscene materials to minors; and possession of child pornography.
The opnion goes on at great lengths on a variety of issues, but the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress as it relates to Carpenter was that a subpoena was insufficient for cell phone data that it claimed went beyond numbers that were dialed. The Court decided that Carpenter did not apply to phone records that called for subscriber information.
The case is United States v. Streett, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201025, 2018 WL 6182439 (Dist. N.M.) November 27, 2018.