Federal CDs in cases where prosecutors obtained historical CSLI under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) order instead of a warrant.

Motion to Suppress, Cell-Site Location Information (CSLI) Without a Warrant

Fourth Amendment suppression motion for CSLI obtained without a warrant or by subpoena. Carpenter v. United States doctrine.

Move to suppress the CSLI and its fruits under Carpenter. If the government used a D-order or pen register rather than a warrant supported by probable cause, the acquisition violated the Fourth Amendment.

“[W]hen the Government accessed CSLI from the wireless carriers, it invaded Carpenter's reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of his physical movements.”
Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2219 (2018) (Roberts, C.J.) — CSLI requires warrant; third-party doctrine inapplicable to historical cell-site records(opens in new tab)

Order, $97 →

PDF delivered to your inbox.

What this template gives you that a cold WESTLAW search does not.

01.
Not boilerplate: the Carpenter v. United States authority is source-linked to the CourtListener opinion, so you verify it is still good law before you file. Carpenter (2018) held that historical CSLI for seven or more days requires a warrant, the third-party doctrine does not apply.
02.
Open question in lower courts: real-time CSLI, tower dumps, and precision location data beyond CSLI.
03.
Cross-exam targets the legal process used (warrant vs. D-order vs. subpoena) and the date range obtained.

Authorities inside · source-checkable

The controlling authority this template is built on.

Before you buy, see the spine of the deliverable. Verbatim quotes are reproduced word for word from the opinion they cite; any attributed summary is labelled as a summary, never dressed up as a quote. Each entry links to its source so you can confirm it yourself. Nothing is paraphrased into a citation it does not support.

5Controlling authorities cited

5Verbatim opinion quotes

5Checkable source URLs

3Independent source hosts

Lead controlling authorityVerbatim quote
“[W]hen the Government accessed CSLI from the wireless carriers, it invaded Carpenter's reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of his physical movements.”
Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2219 (2018) (Roberts, C.J.) — CSLI requires warrant; third-party doctrine inapplicable to historical cell-site records · 138 S. Ct. at 2219–2220Verify the source
Supporting authorityVerbatim quote
“Police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Chatrie's location data from Google because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information.”
Chatrie v. United States, 609 U.S. ___, No. 25-112 (Kagan, J., 6-3) — acquiring geofence "Location History" data is a Fourth Amendment search; controlling and favorable. The Court decided only that a search occurred and vacated and remanded 136 F.4th 100 (4th Cir. 2025) (en banc), leaving the warrant's particularity/probable-cause reasonableness for remand (decided June 29, 2026) · 609 U.S. ___ (2026) (slip op., at 3) (Held)Verify the source
Supporting authorityVerbatim quote
“The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought.”
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 403 (2014) (Roberts, C.J.) — cell phone search incident to arrest requires warrant; comprehensive digital data warrants full Fourth Amendment protection · 573 U.S. at 393–403Verify the source
Supporting authorityVerbatim quote
“It is important to be clear about what occurred in this case: The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information.”
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 404 (2012) (Scalia, J.) — GPS tracker on vehicle is Fourth Amendment search; physical trespass doctrine; Alito concurrence articulates reasonable-expectation analysis for long-term surveillance · 565 U.S. at 404–413Verify the source
Supporting authorityVerbatim quote
“A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communications services of the contents of a wire or electronic communication that has been in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for more than one hundred and eighty days by the means available under subsection (b) of this section.”
18 U.S.C. § 2703(a) — Stored Communications Act; disclosure requirements; the statute's court-order standard (§ 2703(d)) does not satisfy Fourth Amendment warrant requirement for CSLI per Carpenter · 18 U.S.C. § 2703(a), (d)Verify the source

Provenance: every citation above carries a source URL that was fetched and confirmed reachable when the template was authored. A citation without a working source URL does not ship. Counsel of record adapts the motion language to circuit-specific precedent and the facts of the case before filing.

Order intake.

Cell-Site Warrant Motion, Case details

Delivery email *

Motion template PDF delivered here. Stripe checkout uses this address.

Case identifier *

Do not enter the actual client name. Use any internal identifier, BenchRecon never needs the real name.

Jurisdiction *

Court the matter is pending in. Stamps the brief cover and informs which circuit-level Fourth Amendment doctrine to flag in the motion language.

Firm name (optional)

Billing entity, rendered on the brief cover and included on the invoice when provided.

Privilege handling

Intake data is stored under attorney work-product principles. BenchRecon does not access the intake payload outside of brief generation. Do not enter privileged client communications, defense strategy, or identifying details, submit only the case parameters this form requests.

Charged after you submit. 7-day full refund.

Frequently asked questions.

What does the template contain?

Eight sections: cover (your case identifier + jurisdiction stamped on), scope of motion (constitutional / statutory ground and the doctrine the court must apply), lead controlling authority (verbatim finding + source URL), 2-4 supporting authorities with source URLs, pre-drafted motion language (~250 words editable), reply-brief framework (anticipates the government's expected response), 8-12 cross-examination questions for the testifying officer, and the methods + source URLs bibliography.

Is this legal advice?

No. The template is a research artifact modeled on controlling Fourth Amendment doctrine for this motion type. Counsel of record adapts the motion language to the circuit's specific precedent and the facts of the case before filing.

How fast is delivery?

Stripe checkout completes in seconds; the PDF is emailed to the address you provide. Templates are pre-built, there is no per-case data pipeline running.

Do you cite anything I cannot independently verify?

No. Every citation in every template carries a source URL. Lead authorities are United States Supreme Court opinions. Supporting authorities are binding circuit precedent, all linked to CourtListener or official government sources. A citation without a working source URL does not ship.

Refund policy?

7-day full refund, no questions asked.