Summary
The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Michael Jason Registe’s motion to suppress cellular telephone records voluntarily disclosed by Cricket Communications to police during a double-homicide investigation. The court held that Registe lacked Fourth Amendment standing to challenge records owned by the telephone company and that the disclosure complied with applicable Georgia and federal statutory provisions concerning emergency disclosures. The court also concluded that suppression was not an available remedy under the cited federal and state statutes.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Registe had a Fourth Amendment privacy interest sufficient to challenge Cricket Communications' disclosure of telephone billing records.
- Whether Cricket's voluntary disclosure of the cell phone records complied with OCGA § 16-11-66.1 and the federal Stored Communications Act, particularly 18 U.S.C. § 2702(c)(4).
- Whether suppression was an available remedy for an alleged violation of OCGA § 16-11-66.1 or 18 U.S.C. § 2702(c)(4).
Holdings
- Registe was not entitled to challenge the release of the telephone records on Fourth Amendment grounds because telephone billing records are business records owned by the telephone company and he lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in records belonging to someone else.
- Cricket's voluntary release of Registe's cell phone records complied with the applicable state and federal statutory provisions because Cricket, acting in good faith, believed that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury required disclosure without delay.
- Suppression of evidence is not an available remedy under OCGA § 16-11-66.1 or 18 U.S.C. § 2702(c)(4).
Key quotations
“As a result, defendants generally lack standing to challenge the release of such records under the Fourth Amendment because they do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records belonging to someone else.” (156)
“This supported Cricket’s good faith belief that there was an ongoing emergency, and that belief supported Cricket’s voluntary disclosure of its records.” (157)
Factual background
Police investigating a double homicide received a cell phone number associated with a person named Mike, whom witnesses said the victims had intended to meet. Detective Jackson requested subscriber and limited call information from Cricket Communications, identifying the request as involving an at-large double-homicide suspect who posed an immediate danger; Cricket voluntarily disclosed the records. The records and ensuing investigation identified Registe, and police later obtained additional records through a court order. Registe sought suppression of the records.
Procedural history
After police obtained cellular telephone records from Cricket Communications and later acquired a court order for additional records, Registe moved to suppress the records. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court of Georgia granted Registe's application for an interlocutory appeal and affirmed.