West v. Patterson-Schwartz & Associates, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding “[t]here is no inherent constitutional difference between trailing a defendant and tracking him via [cell site location information] technology”
• holding defendant “did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data given off by his voluntarily procured pay-as-you-go cell phone”
• holding DEA agents tracking defendant's cell phone for three days did not rise to \a level of comprehensive tracking that would violate the Fourth Amendment\
• holding DEA agents tracking defendant’s cell phone for three days did not rise to “a level of comprehensive tracking that would violate the Fourth Amendment”
• holding government use of real-time cell-phone GPS data to track a suspected drug trafficker as he traveled for three days in a “motorhome that was driven on public roads” was not a search
• holding government use of real-time cell-phone GPS data to track a suspected drug trafficker as he traveled for three days in a “motorhome that was driven on public roads” was not a search

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).