ROY M. JOHNSON, PETITIONER,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• Ferrari v. State, 260 So. 3d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
  …protection and thus [*306] exempt from the warrant requirement. In fact, CSLI data is never mentioned in reported decisions in that time period. When denying Ferrari's motion to suppress, the trial court relied on our decision in Mitchell v. State , 25 So. 3d 632, 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), which held that a person has no expectation of privacy in historical CSLI. However, that decision was several years after the search, and even in that opinion, we noted that the case law concerning historical CSLI was unset…
• Tracey v. State, 69 So. 3d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
  …itoring of the beeper “revealed no information that could not have been obtained through visual. surveillance.” United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705, 707, 104 S.Ct. 3296, 82 L.Ed.2d 530 (1984) (explaining the holding in Knotts). In Mitchell v. State, 25 So. 3d 632, 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), we applied Knotts to hold that historical cell site information “does not implicate Fourth Amendment protections.” Here, the monitoring of the CSLI occurred only when Tracey’s vehicle was on public roads, where it “could h…
• Deitrick Johnson v. State, 110 So. 3d 954 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
  …d Fourth Amendment protection, the defendant urges us to hold that this information, known as historical cell phone site information, should have been suppressed. However, the defendant acknowledges that we addressed this issue in Mitchell v. State, 25 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). In Mitchell, we held that “historical cell site information is not content-based. The user of a cell phone has no expectation of privacy in those records.” Id. at 635 (citing Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 61 L.…