State v. Martin
A Florida appellate decision on Stingray standing, undisclosed technology, warrant scope, good faith, and suppression.
Executive Summary
Danny Martin’s mother was found dead in the apartment they shared. Investigators obtained court orders directing wireless providers to supply cellphone location information. The applications did not mention a cell-site simulator, and officers admitted that their practice at the time was not to disclose intended simulator use. Provider data brought police to a general area, and officers then used the simulator to find Martin sitting in the victim’s parked car with incriminating evidence. The trial court suppressed the evidence. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed. Martin challenged the seizure of his own location data, not merely a search of the victim’s vehicle, so he had a personal Fourth Amendment interest. The CSLI orders did not authorize simulator deployment, and good faith did not apply merely because no binding 2012 decision had yet squarely required a simulator warrant. Officers went beyond the authorized provider process and used a more invasive technique without disclosure.
Key Holdings at a Glance
Investigation and Arrest
In 2012, Martin was charged with first-degree murder after his mother was found dead in their shared apartment. Detectives used cellular location methods to search for him. Provider-generated CSLI narrowed the search area but did not identify his exact position.
Officers then deployed a cell-site simulator. They found Martin sitting in the victim’s parked vehicle along with several items of evidence. He moved to suppress, contending that the tracking and resulting seizure violated the Fourth Amendment.
Why the Technology Mattered
CSLI is produced through a carrier’s network and typically reveals a phone’s general relationship to cell sites. A simulator instead impersonates a tower, causes nearby devices to respond directly to government equipment, and can identify a target phone’s precise location.
| Method | Collector | Typical Result | Authorization Concern |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provider CSLI | Wireless carrier | Historical or real-time network-based location | Order or warrant directs carrier disclosure |
| Cell-site simulator | Law enforcement | Direct target identification and precise location | Requires express authorization for active government collection |
The Court Orders and the Undisclosed Simulator
Detectives applied under Florida statutes for orders authorizing acquisition of CSLI from service providers. The papers did not identify a cell-site simulator. Officers later acknowledged that disclosing intended simulator use was not their practice at the time.
The State argued that references to real-time or live location and a mobile tracking device reasonably included the simulator. Applying State v. Sylvestre, the court rejected that position: the authorized provider process and the police-operated simulator were materially different searches.
Martin’s Fourth Amendment Interest
The State argued that Martin lacked standing because he was found in the victim’s vehicle and could not claim a privacy interest in it. The court held that this framed the challenged search incorrectly.
Martin contested the search and seizure of his cellphone location data. That personal information was used to locate him, regardless of who owned the physical place where officers ultimately found him. The record established the necessary connection between Martin, the target phone, and the tracking.
Why the Simulator Exceeded the Orders
The orders permitted officers to obtain information from wireless carriers. They did not authorize the State to operate its own surveillance equipment and force phones to reveal their location directly.
Once provider data brought investigators to a broad area, the officers used an unauthorized method to obtain the precision they still lacked. That was not simply a technical means of executing the same authority; it was a distinct collection method with additional privacy consequences.
Good-Faith Exception Rejected
The State emphasized that in 2012 no binding appellate decision expressly held that police needed a warrant to use a simulator. The court found that insufficient. Good faith is not established merely because no case has yet forbidden a new technique.
Officers did not disclose the simulator, and the orders did not approve it. They moved outside the authorized process when provider information could not supply the desired precision. The resulting violation was the kind of conduct suppression could deter.
Changing Location-Privacy Precedent
At the time of the 2012 investigation, the Florida intermediate appellate decision in Tracey I did not require a warrant for CSLI. The Florida Supreme Court later reversed that rule in Tracey II, and the U.S. Supreme Court decided Carpenter in 2018.
But the simulator problem remained distinct. The old CSLI decision did not affirmatively authorize an undisclosed, direct government technology. Sylvestre later confirmed that probable cause and a warrant are required for simulator deployment.
Why Suppression Was Affirmed
The simulator supplied the precise location leading officers to Martin and the evidence in the parked car. Because the deployment exceeded the court orders and good faith did not apply, the trial court properly suppressed the resulting evidence.
The decision reinforces that a court should examine the actual causal role of each technology rather than treating every location source as interchangeable.
Martin and Sylvestre Compared
| Issue | State v. Sylvestre | State v. Martin |
|---|---|---|
| Initial authority | CSLI and trap-and-trace orders | Provider-directed CSLI orders |
| Simulator disclosed | No | No |
| Where target was located | Inside a specific residence | In the victim’s parked vehicle |
| Distinctive issue | Direct versus indirect surveillance and derivative residential warrant | Personal location-data interest and good faith |
| Result | Suppression affirmed | Suppression affirmed |
Current Significance
Martin is especially useful when an agency obtained some legal process but used technology not described in the application. It cautions against assuming that statutory labels or broad location language cover every investigative method.
Agencies must apply controlling federal and state authority, statutes, constitutional provisions, warrant rules, and current technical capabilities. The safest planned-use practice is a detailed probable-cause warrant expressly authorizing the simulator.
Agency Operations Checklist
- Identify the target phone and offense nexus.
- Distinguish provider CSLI, GPS, pen-register data, and simulator collection.
- Name the simulator expressly in the application and warrant.
- Explain active phone connections and non-target collection.
- Set geography, duration, precision, power, activation, and termination limits.
- Prohibit unauthorized content collection.
- Minimize, segregate, and delete non-target data.
- Preserve applications, orders, logs, settings, outputs, operator notes, and deletion records.
Litigation and Review Checklist
- Identify the precise government act being challenged and the defendant’s personal connection to the target data.
- Do not collapse a location-data search into ownership of the place where the defendant was found.
- Compare every affidavit and order with the technology actually used.
- Determine whether officers disclosed the simulator and its functions.
- Map what each location source contributed to finding the target.
- For good faith, identify affirmative authority on which officers relied—not merely the absence of a prohibitory case.
- Trace physical evidence and statements to simulator-derived information.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why could Martin challenge the search?
He challenged government acquisition of his phone’s location data, not a privacy interest in the victim’s car.
Did police have court orders?
Yes, but the orders concerned carrier-provided CSLI and did not mention or authorize a simulator.
Why did good faith fail?
Officers used undisclosed technology outside the orders’ scope. The lack of a then-binding case expressly prohibiting simulator use did not establish objectively reasonable reliance.
Did the court require a simulator warrant?
Applying Sylvestre, it reiterated that the State must establish probable cause and obtain a warrant before using a cell-site simulator.
What happened to the evidence?
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s suppression order.
Primary Authorities and Related Law
Per curiam opinion affirming suppression of evidence derived from unauthorized simulator use.
Read the complete opinion
Controlling district authority distinguishing provider orders from simulator deployment.
Read State v. Sylvestre
Florida Supreme Court decision requiring probable cause for real-time cellphone-location tracking.
Read Tracey v. State
Supreme Court decision addressing historical CSLI and the warrant requirement.
Read Carpenter v. United States
Final Assessment
State v. Martin shows that privacy analysis follows the data the government searched, not simply the physical location where police ultimately made contact. It also rejects a dangerous novelty principle: officers cannot treat new surveillance technology as warrantless by default until a court expressly says otherwise.