Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

United States v. Graham

United States v. Graham

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

December 11, 2014, Argued; August 5, 2015, Decided

No. 12-4659, No. 12-4825

Opinion

 [*338] DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge:

Appellants Aaron Graham and Eric Jordan appeal their convictions for several offenses arising from a series of armed robberies. Specifically, Appellants challenge the district court's admission of testimonial and documentary evidence relating to cell site location information ("CSLI") recorded by their cell phone service provider. We conclude that the government's warrantless procurement of the CSLI was an unreasonable search in violation of Appellants' Fourth Amendment rights. Nevertheless, because the government relied in good faith on court orders issued in accordance with Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, or the Stored Communications Act ("SCA"), we hold the court's admission of the challenged [**3]  evidence must be sustained.

Jordan separately challenges restrictions on his own testimony imposed by the district court, the court's denial of his motion for severance, the exclusion of certain out-of-court statements attributed to Graham, the admission of evidence seized during a search of his residence, and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting several of his convictions. Finding no reversible error in these respects, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

This prosecution arose from a series of six armed robberies of several business establishments located in Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Maryland. After a nine-day joint trial in the U.S. District  [*339]  Court for the District of Maryland, a jury found Appellants guilty on all counts submitted to it. Aaron Graham was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, Hobbs Act robbery, conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, and brandishing a firearm in connection with all six robberies. Eric Jordan was convicted of conspiracy, Hobbs Act robbery, and brandishing a firearm in connection with three of the robberies.

The evidence adduced at trial permitted the jury to find the following facts.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

796 F.3d 332 *; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13653 **; 98 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 98; 63 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 170

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. AARON GRAHAM, Defendant - Appellant. ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF MARYLAND; CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY & TECHNOLOGY; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, Amici Supporting Appellant.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ERIC JORDAN, Defendant - Appellant. ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF MARYLAND; CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY & TECHNOLOGY; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, Amici Supporting Appellant.

Subsequent History: Vacated by, Rehearing, en banc, granted by United States v. Graham, 624 Fed. Appx. 75, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19064 (4th Cir., Oct. 28, 2015)

Affirmed by United States v. Graham, 824 F.3d 421, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9797 (4th Cir. Md., May 31, 2016)

Prior History:  [**1] Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. (1:11-cr-00094-RDB-1; 1:11-cr-00094-RDB-2). Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.

United States v. Graham, 846 F. Supp. 2d 384, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26954 (D. Md., Mar. 1, 2012)

CORE TERMS

cell phone, records, user, robberies, cell, phone, privacy, third-party, district court, service provider, sites, tower, reasonable expectation of privacy, third party, technology, convey, tracking, connect, truck, surveillance, inspection, probable cause, network, expectation of privacy, conspiracy, monitoring, courts, email, law enforcement, court order

Business & Corporate Compliance, Communications Law, Federal Acts, Stored Communications Act, Criminal Law & Procedure, Search Warrants, Probable Cause, General Overview, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Search & Seizure, Probable Cause, Scope of Protection, Warrants, Expectation of Privacy, Warrantless Searches, Eavesdropping, Electronic Surveillance & Wiretapping, Governments, Federal Government, US Postal Service, Exclusionary Rule, Exclusionary Rule, Rule Application & Interpretation, Exceptions to Exclusionary Rule, Good Faith, Case or Controversy, Constitutionality of Legislation, Standards of Review, Abuse of Discretion, Evidence, Harmless & Invited Error, Trials, Judicial Discretion, Evidence, Admissibility, Expert Witnesses, Testimony, Expert Witnesses, Lay Witnesses, Criminal Process, Compulsory Process, Defendant's Rights, Right to Compulsory Process, Relevance, Exclusion of Relevant Evidence, Confusion, Prejudice & Waste of Time, Right to Due Process, Procedural Due Process, Plain Error, Appeals, Reviewability, Forfeitures, Waiver, Joinder & Severance, Defective Joinder & Severance, Motions for Severance, Accusatory Instruments, Joinder of Defendants, Severance of Codefendants, Hearsay, Rule Components, Exceptions, Statements Against Interest, Affirmations & Oaths, Sufficiency Challenges, Burdens of Proof, Preponderance of Evidence, Fruit of the Poisonous Tree, Motions for Acquittal, De Novo Review, Sufficiency of Evidence, Allocation, Substantial Evidence, Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Inchoate Crimes, Conspiracy, Elements, Prosecution, Extortion, Hobbs Act, Criminal Offenses, Weapons Offenses, Definitions, Possession of Weapons