O P I N I O NChristian Vernon Sims, Appellant, was charged with murder. He filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence of real-time location information used to track his cell phone by “pinging” it without a warrant.[1] Using that information, police found and arrested Appellant. In his motion to suppress, Appellant argued that the police violated the Fourth Amendment when they searched his phone for real-time location information. He also contended that the search violated the Stored Communications Act (the SCA), a federal law, and articles 18.21 and 38.23(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.[2] The trial court denied Appellant’s motion, and Appellant pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain. The judge sentenced him to 35 years’ confinement. As part of the agreement, he reserved the right to appeal the trial court’s ruling. The court of appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial court. Appellant filed a petition for discretionary review, which we granted on two grounds: (1) whether suppression is a remedy for a violation of the SCA or Article 18.21, and (2) whether a person is entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy in real-time CSLI records stored in a cell phone’s electronic storage.[3]We conclude that suppression is not an available remedy under the Stored Communications Act unless the violation also violates the United States Constitution. And suppression is not an available remedy for a violation of Article 18.21 unless the violation infringes on the United States or Texas constitutions. We further conclude that, under the facts of this case, Appellant did not have an expectation of privacy in the realtime location information stored in his phone. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.FACTSOn December 18, 2014, Annie Sims (Appellant’s grandmother), was found dead on the porch of her home in Lamar County. She had been killed by a single gunshot to the back of her head. Mary Tucker, Annie’s mother, discovered her daughter’s body and called 911. Annie was lying face down on the back porch in a pool of blood. Detective Jonathan Smith of the Lamar County Sheriff’s Office responded, and he contacted Tucker, who identified the body as that of her daughter. Lieutenants Joe Tuttle and Joel Chipman also spoke to Tucker, who told them that Annie’s 2012 Silver Toyota Highlander was missing from the driveway and that Appellant (her great-grandson) and his girlfriend, Ashley Morrison, were possible suspects. Police searched the property and discovered that, in addition to the Highlander and Annie’s purse, a Beretta 9mm handgun and a .38 Special revolver were also missing.When Mike Sims (Annie’s husband) arrived home, he spoke to police, who told him about the missing purse. Mike called Capitol One to report credit cards from Annie’s purse as stolen, and a company representative told him that they had been used three times, including once at a Wal-Mart in McAlester, Oklahoma (about 80 miles north of Powderly, Lamar County, Texas). Police in Texas contacted the McAlester Police Department and asked them to go to the Wal-Mart to investigate. Officers discovered that a young man and woman, who used a credit card stolen from Annie’s purse, bought some items and left in a 2012 Silver Toyota Highlander. McAlester police took pictures of the man and woman from security footage and texted them to Texas law enforcement. Appellant’s grandfather identified the two people as his grandson and Morrison.Chief Deputy Jeff Springer from the Lamar County Sheriff’s Office thought that there was probable cause to believe that Appellant committed the felony offenses of murder, burglary of a habitation, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, and credit card abuse based on all the information he had. He also believed that Appellant and Morrison were a danger to the public because they were likely armed. Springer returned to the Lamar County Sheriff’s Office to obtain a warrant to “ping” Appellant’s and Morrison’s cell phones.[4] Back in the office, however, Springer discovered that another officer, Sergeant Steve Hill, had already begun the process to ping the cell phones. According to Springer, he could have obtained a warrant because it was during business hours and local judges were readily available, but he did not because he was told not to do so. Instead of seeking a warrant, Hill used an “EMERGENCY SITUATION DISCLOSURE” form provided by Verizon Wireless (Verizon), Appellant’s service provider. Below the title of the document, the form states that, “Upon receipt of this completed form, Verizon[] may divulge records or other information to governmental entities in certain emergencies, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §2702(b)(8) or §2702(c)(4) or an equivalent state law.”[5] The first question on the form asks whether the situation “potentially involve[s] the danger of death or serious bodily injury to a person, necessitating the immediate release of information relating to that emergency.” Hill checked the box labeled, “YES.” Under “Types of Records Being Requested,” Hill checked the box “Location Information.” The form also asked the “Time Frame for Which Information is Requested,” and he wrote “current.” Hill signed the document on December 18, 2014 and faxed it to Verizon.According to Hill, there was a 20-minute delay from when Appellant’s phone was “pinged” and when the police received real-time location information. The real-time CSLI from the first ping showed that the phone was a few miles north of the Wal-Mart where the Capitol One credit card was used. Because of the 20-minute delay, Hill used Google Maps to estimate where Appellant and Morrison probably were, assuming that they continued in the same direction.[6] Hill called ahead to three different Oklahoma police departments to request that they look for Appellant and Morrison. The police found them based on information from a ping, which showed that Appellant’s phone was at a truck stop off of the Indian Nation Turnpike. Police located Appellant and Morrison at a motel across the street from the truck stop.Officers spoke to the motel manager and identified which room Appellant and Morrison were staying in. Both suspects were taken into custody without incident. Appellant told an officer that “[Morrison] had nothing to do with it. It was all me.” After searching the motel room, among other things, the police discovered several hundred .22- caliber bullets, six knives, a white towel with a blood stain, a Beretta 9mm, and two boxes of 9mm bullets. The Beretta 9mm was loaded, and there was a bullet in the chamber.MOTION TO SUPPRESSIn defense counsel’s motion to suppress, he alleged that accessing the real-time location records stored in Appellant’s cell phone violated the Fourth Amendment, Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution, and Article 38.23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the hearing on the motion, defense counsel added that the evidence should have been suppressed because the police violated the Stored Communications Act and Article 18.21, both of which deal with accessing electronically stored data. The State responded that, even if Appellant did have an expectation of privacy in the data stored on his phone, law enforcement had exigent circumstances to ping Appellant’s cell phone to determine his whereabouts.[7]The trial court denied Appellant’s motion. In written findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court found that police had exigent circumstances to ping Appellant’s cell phone pursuant to Article 18.21 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.[8] It did not address his Fourth Amendment or Stored Communications Act claims.STANDARD OF REVIEWWe review a ruling on a motion to suppress using a bifurcated standard of review. Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 87-91 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). A trial court’s findings of historical fact and determinations of mixed questions of law and fact that turn on credibility and demeanor are afforded almost total deference if they are reasonably supported by the record. Id. We review a trial court’s determination of legal questions and its application of the law to facts that do not turn upon a determination of witness credibility and demeanor de novo. Id. When a trial court denies a motion to suppress, we will uphold that ruling under any theory of the law applicable to the case. Estrada v. State, 154 S.W.3d 604, 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).STATUTORY CONSTRUCTIONStatutory construction is a question of law, which we review de novo. Ramos v. State, 303 S.W.3d 302, 306 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). When construing statutes, we “seek to effectuate the ‘collective’ intent or purpose of the legislators who enacted the legislation.” Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We first look to the statute to determine if its language is plain. We presume that the legislature intended for every word to have a purpose, and we should give effect if reasonably possible to each word, phrase, and clause of the statutory language. State v. Hardy, 963 S.W.2d 516, 520 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We read “[w]ords and phrases . . . in context and constru[e] [them] according to the rules of grammar and usage.” Sanchez v. State, 995 S.W.2d 677, 683 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). If the language of the statute is plain, we follow that language unless it leads to absurd results that the legislature could not have possibly intended. When the plain language leads to absurd results, or if the language of the statute is ambiguous, we consult extra-textual factors to discern the legislature’s intent. Boykin, 818 S.W.2d at 785-86.STATUTORY CLAIMSA. The Stored Communications Act and Article 18.21Appellant argues that real-time location data obtained at the behest of the State must be suppressed under Article 38.23(a) if it is obtained in violation of the Stored Communications Act or Article 18.21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the state-law corollary of the SCA. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 38.23(a) (“[n]o evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any . . . laws of the State of Texas, or of the . . . laws of the United States of America, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case.”).Article 38.23(a) is a general statutory suppression remedy. Unlike Article 38.23(a), the Stored Communications Act and Article 18.21 are detailed statutes that address the collection of cell phone subscriber records, like the real-time location information at issue here. Both the SCA and Article 18.21 also contain exclusivity clauses. That is, both statutes contain provisions stating that, absent a federal constitutional violation (the SCA) or a federal or state constitutional violation (Article 18.21), the only available judicial remedies are those provided for in the statutes.[9] 18 U.S.C. § 2708 (“The remedies and sanctions described in this chapter are the only judicial remedies and sanctions for nonconstitutional violations of this chapter.”); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 18.21 § 13 (“The remedies and sanctions described in this article are the exclusive judicial remedies and sanctions for a violation of this article other than a violation that infringes on a right of a party guaranteed by a state or federal constitution.”).Appellant argues that those provisions are ambiguous because they do not specifically prohibit the invocation of a statutory remedy, such as Article 38.23(a). We disagree. A statute need not be that specific. There is no requirement for Congress or the legislature to individually exclude each possible federal and state remedy in lieu of including an exclusivity provision.[10] At any rate, we think such a comprehensive requirement would be ill-conceived and difficult, if not impossible, to comply with. We conclude that the language of the provisions is plain and that effectuating that language does not lead to absurd results.[11]B. Can the Exclusivity Language of the Stored Communications Act and Article 18.21 Be Reconciled with the Language of Article 38.23(a)?The next question is whether the plain language of the exclusivity provisions in the Stored Communications Act and Article 18.21 control or whether Article 38.23(a) controls in this situation. Appellant contends that Article 38.23(a) should prevail, relying on the expansive language of the statute. But we conclude that the statutes can be harmonized and each given effect by applying the “general versus the specific” canon of statutory construction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 311.026 (a) (“If a general provision conflicts with a special or local provision, the provisions shall be construed, if possible, so that effect is given to both.”); ANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN GARNER, READING LAW at 183 (2012) [hereinafter Reading Law].The “general versus the specific” canon of statutory construction stands for the proposition that “[i]f there is a conflict between a general provision and a specific provision, the specific provision prevails . . . .” as an exception to the general provision. Reading Law at 183. “The specific provision does not negate the general one entirely, but only in its application to the situation that the specific provisions cover.” Id.; see TEX. Gov’t Code § 311.026 (“[T]he special or local provision prevails as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision is the later enactment and the manifest intent is that the general provision prevail.”). Here, Article 38.23(a) is the general provision, and the Stored Communications Act and Article 18.21 are the special provisions, and both the SCA and Article 18.21 were enacted after Article 38.23(a). Id. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the exclusivity provisions in the StoredCommunications Act and Article 18.21 prevail as exceptions to the general Article 38.23(a) remedy of suppression when dealing with nonconstitutional violations of the SCA and Article 18.21.[12] This harmonizing interpretation gives effect to each word, phrase, clause, and sentence in all three statutes to the greatest, reasonable extent possible.[13]FOURTH AMENDMENT CLAIMIn addition to statutory violations, Appellant claims that the State violated the Fourth Amendment when it searched his cell phone to obtain real-time tracking information and that the court of appeals erred when it held that he did not have an expectation of privacy in the real-time CSLI records. The court of appeals reasoned that, even though a person might have an expectation of privacy in such records if they showed that he was in a private place, when the records reveal that he is in a public place, he has no legitimate expectation of privacy in his physical movements or location. Sims, 526 S.W.3d at 644. The court of appeals further stated that “the real-time tracking data appears to have been used to track Appellant to exclusively public places . . . ,” and based on that, it reached the conclusion that Appellant did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in “the location of his cell phone in those locations.” Id. at 644 (citing United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 281 (1983); United States v. Forest, 355 F.3d 942, 951-52 (6th Cir. 2004)); see Ford v. State, 477 S.W.3d 321, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (“Fourth Amendment concerns might be raised . . . if real-time location information were used to track the present movements of individuals in private locations . . . .”)).a. Applicable LawThe threshold issue in every Fourth Amendment analysis is whether a particular government action constitutes a “search” or “seizure” within the meaning of the Amendment. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984). In its early jurisprudence, the Supreme Court determined whether a particular action was a “search” or “seizure” based on principles of property trespass.[14] In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 353 (1967), however, the Court recognized that the Fourth Amendment also protects certain expectations of privacy, not just physical intrusions on constitutionally protected areas. Id.; Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2213 (2018). Under Katz, to prove a Fourth Amendment violation, a defendant must show (1) that the person had a subjective expectation of privacy and (2) that the subjective expectation of privacy is one that society recognizes, or is prepared to recognize, as reasonable. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740 (1979). To resolve the expectation-of-privacy issue in this case, we must consider two different lines of Supreme Court jurisprudence and the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Carpenter. We review that precedent now.1. Physical Movements & LocationThe first case we consider is Knotts, 460 U.S. at 276, which was decided in 1983. In that case, the police placed a “beeper” into a five-gallon container of chloroform, a chemical used as a precursor for methamphetamine production. Id. at 278. Through a combination of visual surveillance and information gathered from the “beeper,” police tracked the container until it was delivered to Knott’s secluded cabin in Wisconsin. Id. The Supreme Court held that there was no Fourth Amendment search because “[a] person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements.” Id. at 281. The Court reasoned that, “[s]ince the movements of the vehicle and its final destination had been voluntarily conveyed to anyone who wanted to look, Knotts could not assert a privacy interest in the information obtained.” Id. However, although the Court said that use of the limited “beeper” information was not a Fourth Amendment search, it “reserved the question whether ‘different constitutional principles may be applicable’ if ‘twenty-four hour surveillance of any citizen of this country were possible.’” Id. at 283.In Jones, a case decided three decades after Knotts, the Supreme court addressed the “sophisticated surveillance of the sort envisioned in Knotts,” when the FBI remotely monitored the movements of Jones’s vehicle via an attached GPS tracking device for 28 days. Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2216. Harkening back to Olmstead, the Court applied a physical-trespass theory instead of relying on the Katz expectation-of-privacy analysis. Id. at 426. Nonetheless, five justices agreed that “‘longer term GPS monitoring” could infringe a person’s legitimate expectation of privacy “regardless [of] whether those movements were disclosed to the public at large.” Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2215 (citing United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 430 (2012) (Alito, J., concurring), 415 (Sotomayor, J,, concurring)) (stating that CSLI records can “provide[] an intimate window into a person’s life, revealing not only his particular movements, but through them his ‘familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations’” and that the content of the records “‘hold for many Americans the privacies of life.’”). This approach has been referred to as the “mosaic” theory. 1 WAYNE R. LAFAVE, SEARCH AND SEIZURE: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 2.7(f) (5th ed. Supp. Oct. 2018).2. Third Party DoctrineIn United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 436 (1976), the Government subpoenaed bank records as part of an on-going tax-evasion investigation, including canceled checks, deposit slips, and monthly statements. Miller argued that the search of his bank records violated his legitimate expectation of privacy. Id. The Supreme Court disagreed. Id. at 437, 442. It reasoned that the records were business records that Miller had no ownership or possessory interest in and that the nature of the documents was not confidential because the checks were negotiable instruments “to be used in commercial transactions,” and the statements contained information available to bank employees in the ordinary course of business. Id.In Smith v. Maryland, police asked a telephone company for permission to install a pen register at its offices to record numbers dialed from a telephone at Smith’s home. Smith, 442 U.S. at 735. The Supreme Court extended its holding in Miller to numbers dialed on a land-line telephone, concluding that the use of the pen register did not constitute a “search” because a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dials since that information is voluntarily conveyed to third parties. Id. at 743.3. CarpenterIn Carpenter, the Supreme Court considered whether a person has a legitimate expectation of privacy in historical CSLI records. Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2214-15. It concluded that, under the facts of that case, Carpenter had an expectation of privacy. Id. at 2219. Knotts did not control, it explained, because Knotts dealt with a less sophisticated form of surveillance that did not address the realities of CSLI information, GPS trackers, and the like. Id. at 2218. It also reasoned that the third-party doctrine was inapplicable because historical CSLI information is not voluntarily turned over to a cell phone service provider in the common understanding of the term as it was explained in Miller and Smith. Id. at 2217. The Supreme Court ultimately held that Carpenter had a legitimate expectation of privacy in at least seven days of historical CSLI associated with his cell phone and that, as a result, the government violated the Fourth Amendment when it searched his phone without a warrant supported by probable cause. Id. at 2221.b. AnalysisEven though Carpenter dealt with historical CSLI, not real-time location information, we believe that the Court’s reasoning in Carpenter applies to both kinds of records.[15] In these contexts, the Supreme Court has discredited the application of the third-party doctrine (Smith) as well as the public-thoroughfare rule (Knotts). In light of that, we now know that the court of appeals’s reliance on Smith and Knotts was misplaced.[16] Whether a particular government action constitutes a “search” or “seizure” does not turn on the content of the CSLI records; it turns on whether the government searched or seized “enough” information that it violated a legitimate expectation of privacy. There is no bright-line rule for determining how long police must track a person’s cell phone in real time before it violates a person’s legitimate expectation of privacy in those records. Whether a person has a recognized expectation of privacy in real-time CSLI records[17] must be decided on a case-by-case basis.Here, Appellant did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in his physical movements or his location as reflected in the less than three hours of real-time CSLI records accessed by police by pinging his phone less than five times.[18] Five justices on the United States Supreme Court have supported the idea that longer-term surveillance might infringe on a person’s legitimate expectation of privacy if the location records reveal the “‘privacies of [his] life,’” but this is not that case. Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2217.CONCLUSIONHaving overruled Appellant’s grounds for review, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.Delivered: January 16, 2019Publish
