In the early morning hours, a confidential informant (CI) contacts the detective he has a long-term relationship with and inquires of him if there’s still a reward of $500 for information resulting in the recovery of a gun. When the detective confirms that the arrangement is possible, the CI discloses the pertinent details as follows: that he just left an associate’s (“Benny Lnu”1) apartment where he had observed several automatic weapons in the bedroom. Moreover, the CI advised that Benny Lnu threatened to find the guys who insulted him at a local bar, and “blow them away” or, alternatively, return to the bar and “shoot up the joint and anyone inside it.” While the detective tries to confirm as many of the details as possible, ala Aguilar/Spinelli,2 his sergeant contacts the department’s special weapons and tactics Unit (SWAT) relaying and updating the investigation details. Within the hour, the police check and conduct physical surveillance of the target location corroborating certain key details, force their way into the apartment, arrest the suspect and seize the weapons, thus preventing a potential tragedy. To be sure, credible testimony will be required at the later suppression hearing to insure the legality of the warrantless search and seizure of the firearms at the apartment. Nevertheless, the exigent circumstances that existed requiring immediate police action were apparent.
Now, let’s change the facts slightly, same story but Benny Lnu is not home when the SWAT team arrives. The CI provides the suspect’s cell phone telephone number—the device that may provide the digital breadcrumb trail to the suspect through cell tracking or “pinging.”3 Do the police need a warrant to get defendant’s cell site location information? Is the cell phone company required to provide the information without a warrant? Are the legal standards the same for both scenarios? These issues are addressed in this article.
