Photo: Marek Slusarczyk/Fotolia

While recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent states that a search warrant must be obtained in order to retrieve a defendant's cellphone-linked location data, that rule does not apply retroactively in the case of a man involved in a kidnapping scheme.

After rehearing argument in the matter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Tuesday affirmed its previous denial of defendant Jay Goldstein's motion to suppress his cell site location information (CSLI), reasoning Goldstein had no reasonable right to privacy.

That decision emerged in the wake of last year's Supreme Court ruling in Carpenter v. United States, in which the high court held that defendants do, in fact, have a right to privacy when it comes to cellphone data and that law enforcement is required to seek a warrant to obtain that evidence.

Despite that, Third Circuit Judge Jane Roth wrote in the court's majority opinion that the prosecution acted in good faith because at the time its acquisition of the data without a warrant was legal. Prosecutors hoped to place Goldstein at the scene of the crime using the data.

Specifically, Roth said the government's conduct was protected under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

“Because the government relied on a properly-obtained valid judicial order, a then-valid statute, and then-binding appellate authority, it had an objectively reasonable, good faith belief that its conduct was legal. Indeed, the conduct was legal at the time,” Roth said.

Goldstein argued that the exception did not apply. Roth said his argument failed, first because he cited a nonbinding Eleventh Circuit ruling which said collecting CSLI without a warrant supported by probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment.

“Goldstein also argues that the good faith exception applies only to police officers and other investigators, not the government attorneys who obtained the Section 2703(d) order here,” Roth said. “Goldstein cites nothing in support of his proposed limitation on the good faith exception, and we see no reason to limit its applicability in this case. The relevant inquiry here is not who the state actor is, but rather, whether the state actor had a reasonable, good faith belief that his actions were legal. The prosecutors relied on a then-valid statute whose constitutionality had been confirmed by this Circuit. The good faith exception applies.”

Adrian O'Connor represents Goldstein and did not respond to a request for comment. The U.S. Attorney's Office in Newark also did not respond.