Prince Jones v. United States

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-CF-322 09/21/2017 PRINCE JONES, APPELLANT, V. UNITED STATES, APPELLEE. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CF1-18140-13) (Hon. Jennifer M. Anderson, Trial Judge) (Argued April 18, 2017 Decided September 21, 2017) Stefanie Schneider, Public Defender Service, with whom Samia Fam and Jaclyn Frankfurt, Public Defender Service, were on the brief, for appellant. Lauren R. Bates, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Channing D. Phillips, United States Attorney, and Elizabeth Trosman, John P. Mannarino, and Jodi S. Lazarus, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the brief, for appellee. Nathan Freed Wessler, American Civil Liberties Union, with whom Arthur B. Spitzer and Scott Michelman, American Civil Liberties Union, and Jennifer Lynch, Electronic Frontier Foundation, were on the brief, for American Civil Liberties Union of the Nation‘s Capital and Electronic Frontier Foundation, amicus curiae, in support of appellant. Before THOMPSON and BECKWITH, Associate Judges, and FARRELL, Senior Judge. 2 Opinion by Associate Judge BECKWITH for the court, except as to Part II.E.3. Opinion by Senior Judge FARRELL, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, at page 47. Dissenting opinion by Associate Judge THOMPSON, at page 54. BECKWITH, Associate Judge: A jury found appellant Prince Jones guilty of various offenses arising out of two alleged incidents of sexual assault and robbery at knifepoint.1 Mr. Jones appeals his convictions on the ground that much of the evidence offered against him at trial was the direct or indirect product of a warrantless—and thus, Mr. Jones argues, unlawful—search involving a cell-site simulator or ―stingray.‖2 Mr. Jones presented this Fourth Amendment claim to the trial court in a pretrial motion to suppress, but the trial court denied it under the 1 Mr. Jones was convicted of two counts of first-degree sexual abuse while armed, D.C. Code §§ 22-3002 (a)(1)–(2), -3020 (a)(5), -3020 (a)(6), -4502 (2012 Repl.); two counts of kidnapping while armed, id. §§ 22-2001, -4502; four counts of robbery while armed, id. §§ 22-2801, -4502; and one count of threats, id. § 22- 1810. 2 The ―StingRay‖ is a popular cell-site simulator produced by the Harris Corporation. See Stephanie K. Pell & Christopher Soghoian, Your Secret Stingray’s No Secret Anymore: The Vanishing Government Monopoly over Cell Phone Surveillance and Its Impact on National Security and Consumer Privacy, 28 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 1, 14 (2014). The name has become a generic term for a cell- site simulator. Kim Zetter, Hacker Lexicon: Stingrays, the Spy Tool the Government Tried, and Failed, to Hide, Wired (May 6, 2016), tried-failed-hide/. The record in this case does not reveal the name of the device used against Mr. Jones; in the suppression hearing, the trial court sustained the government‘s objection to a question about the name of ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals