United States v. Craig Forest (02-3022) and Herman E. Garner, III (02-3064)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that DEA use of cell‐site data was not a “search” under Fourth Amendment because authorities tracked defendant’s movements along public highways
• holding that rendering a 851(a)(1) notice invalid because it was not titled an “information” would put form over substance
• holding that whether the facts establish probable cocaine was seized.2 cause to justify an arrest is a question of law that we review de novo
• finding “no legitimate expectation of privacy in the cell-site data because the DEA agents could have obtained the same information by following [the defendant’s] car”
• “[Defendant] contends that the DEA’s use of cell-site data effectively turned his cellular phone into a tracking device, violating his rights under ... the Fourth Amendment.”
• “[Defendant] contends that the DEA’s use of cell-site data effectively turned his cellular phone into a tracking device, violating his rights under . . . the Fourth Amendment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).