Some commentators are implying that this is a case of first impression, and that the Department of Justice is likely to appeal. http://goo.gl/Hxagxd
From an identification of a telephone number likely from another larger investigation, DEA obtained (based on a warrant) general vicinity location of cell tower use. DEA then employed a STINGRAY (cell tower ping emulator) WITHOUT A WARRANT and some footwork to bring the technician to the door of the to apartment door of the apartment from which the cell phone was transmitting / handshaking with cell towers.
Lambis' father let the DEA in, and once in, Lambis consented to a bedroom search where narcotics, bags, scales as evidence of an active drug business. ISSUES: (1) The permission to enter and permission to search was obviously not considered by the judge to be a waiver, and that might be a first issue should DOJ appeal. (2) Also, there is the question of whether the general vicinity location discovery under the warrant covered the "fine tuning" location provided by the STINGRAY, (3) There is the issue of whether or not eventual discovery of the location might have been available through phone billing records, and other eventual discovery. This case is ripe with issues and I expect the DOJ to appeal. http://patentax.com/curt FOLLOW @PATENTAX ON TWITTER ..
From an identification of a telephone number likely from another larger investigation, DEA obtained (based on a warrant) general vicinity location of cell tower use. DEA then employed a STINGRAY (cell tower ping emulator) WITHOUT A WARRANT and some footwork to bring the technician to the door of the to apartment door of the apartment from which the cell phone was transmitting / handshaking with cell towers.
Lambis' father let the DEA in, and once in, Lambis consented to a bedroom search where narcotics, bags, scales as evidence of an active drug business. ISSUES: (1) The permission to enter and permission to search was obviously not considered by the judge to be a waiver, and that might be a first issue should DOJ appeal. (2) Also, there is the question of whether the general vicinity location discovery under the warrant covered the "fine tuning" location provided by the STINGRAY, (3) There is the issue of whether or not eventual discovery of the location might have been available through phone billing records, and other eventual discovery. This case is ripe with issues and I expect the DOJ to appeal. http://patentax.com/curt FOLLOW @PATENTAX ON TWITTER ..