Background
While Erik Lynn Pawlicki was serving probation for felony delivery of a controlled substance, police obtained two warrants requiring Verizon Wireless to provide real-time GPS location data from his cellphone. The second warrant authorized tracking for 30 days from the date of service. Police delivered it to Verizon on October 25, 2023, and Verizon confirmed that location tracking would continue through November 24.
Verizon nevertheless continued providing Pawlicki’s location data after November 24, and police used data from November 25 and 26 to monitor his movements and coordinate a traffic stop. Officers searched his vehicle after a drug-detection dog alerted and found controlled substances, a firearm, and ammunition. The trial court denied Pawlicki’s suppression motion, and a bench trial resulted in multiple drug- and firearm-related convictions.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals held that Pawlicki had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the record of his movements captured through real-time cellphone location data. The second warrant was served when police delivered it to Verizon on October 25—not when Verizon later acknowledged receipt—so its 30-day authorization expired on November 24. Police therefore acted outside the warrant when they used Pawlicki’s location data on November 25 and 26.
The court also held that Pawlicki’s probation condition requiring him to “submit to” certain warrantless searches did not authorize this tracking because Pawlicki took no voluntary action to provide his cellphone or data to police. The good-faith exception did not apply: Verizon’s confirmation expressly identified November 24 as the tracking end date, and the officers knew or should have known about the warrant’s 30-day limit. The court reversed the suppression ruling, vacated all convictions, and remanded for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in physical movements revealed through real-time cellphone location data.
- A warrant authorizing tracking for 30 days from service began running when police delivered the warrant to the carrier, not when the carrier acknowledged receipt.
- The good-faith exception did not save tracking conducted after the express deadline where the carrier’s confirmation and the warrant itself made that deadline clear.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Fourth Amendment privacy protections to real-time cellphone location tracking and emphasizes that police must comply with a location warrant’s express time limits. A service provider’s continued transmission of data does not independently extend judicial authorization.
The opinion also limits reliance on probation-search conditions and the good-faith exception: a requirement that a probationer “submit to” a search did not authorize covert acquisition from a third party, and officers could not reasonably rely on tracking that the warrant documentation showed had expired.