Case5:15-xr-90304-HRL Document30 Filed07/29/15 Page9 of 46 1 The policy also contains information concerning the accuracy of the “wireless location 2 information” that AT&T collects and explains that AT&T “can locate your device based on the 3 cell tower that’s serving you” up to 1,000 meters in urban areas and 10,000 meters in rural areas. 4 Id. Neither policy indicates how much location data Verizon or AT&T collects, nor does either 5 policy estimate how long each provider will retain that information. 6 United States District Court Northern District of California 7 D. Procedural History The government has submitted, under seal, an application for an order pursuant to 18 8 U.S.C. §§ 3122 and 3123 and 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) seeking CSLI associated with target cell 9 phones. See ECF No. 2 at 1. The application sought historical CSLI for sixty days back from the 10 date of the order, as well as prospective CSLI for sixty days going forward. See id. at 2. In 11 support of its application to Judge Lloyd, the government submitted a letter brief on March 17, 12 2015. ECF No. 1. 13 On April 9, 2015, Judge Lloyd issued a public order denying the government’s application. 14 ECF No. 2. In that order, Judge Lloyd stated that he found “very persuasive” U.S. District Judge 15 Susan Illston’s analysis in United States v. Cooper, No. 13-CR-00693-SI-1, 2015 WL 881578, at 16 *8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2015), which held that the Fourth Amendment requires the government to 17 secure a warrant supported by probable cause before obtaining sixty days’ worth of historical 18 CSLI. ECF No. 2 at 5. “[U]ntil binding authority says otherwise,” Judge Lloyd concluded, “in 19 order to get cell site information, prospective or historical, the government must obtain a search 20 warrant under Rule 41 on a showing of probable cause.” Id. 21 On April 30, 2015, the government appealed Judge Lloyd’s order to the undersigned. 22 Gov’t Br. at 9. The government elected to appeal Judge Lloyd’s denial of the application with 23 respect to historical CSLI only. See id. at 1 (“The government appeals Judge Lloyd’s Order to this 24 Court to the extent Judge Lloyd denied the government historical cell site information.”); id. at 3 25 n.1 (“As noted, however, the government is not appealing Judge Lloyd’s order to the extent it 26 denied the government prospective cell site information.”). On May 7, 2015, the government filed 27 28 9 Case No. 15-XR-90304-HRL-1(LHK) ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR HISTORICAL CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION