Thurs. Apr 14, 2022 | By Justia US Law |
Prior to this case, South Carolina law enforcement (state peace officers) were struggling with the issue of obtaining Cell Site Location Information (CSLI) records from cell service providers where the compliance center was not in their state. South Carolina law (Section 17-13-140), says, “…any court of record of the State having jurisdiction over the area where the property sought is located, may issue a search warrant…”.
The primary focus of the dispute before the trial court over the validity of this warrant was whether an Anderson County (SC) magistrate had the authority to issue the warrant to an out-of-state entity for records that are not physically located in South Carolina.
T-Mobile’s compliance center is located in New Jersey and not in South Carolina, and the Court assumed the data was stored in New Jersey. The important fact is T-Mobile clearly does business in South Carolina, in particular, in Anderson County, as evidenced by the defendants CSLI records in this case. The Court found that T-Mobile, therefore, is subject to the jurisdiction of an Anderson County (SC) magistrate.
Justia Opinion Summary:
Justin Jamal Warner was convicted by jury of murder, attempted armed robbery, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. The court of appeals affirmed. The South Carolina Supreme Court granted Warner’s petition for a writ of certiorari to address: (1) whether the trial court was correct to deny Warner’s motion to suppress cell-site location information (CSLI) seized from his cell phone service provider; and (2) whether an out-of-court viewing by Warner’s probation officer of a crime-scene video and the officer’s identification of Warner as the man in the video required a hearing under Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972). The Supreme Court found the trial court correctly ruled the identification made from the video did not require a Biggers hearing. As to the CSLI, the Court held the warrant the trial court found invalid because the warrant sought information stored in another state was not – at least for that reason – invalid. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals as to the Biggers issue and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings as to Warner’s motion to suppress CSLI.
