United States v. Pembrook

119 F. Supp. 3d 577 (2015)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. Pembrook

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
119 F. Supp. 3d 577 (2015)

Facts

Nathaniel Pembrook, David Briley, Shaeed Calhoun, and Orlando Johnson (defendants) were charged with crimes relating to the robbery and attempted robbery of two Michigan jewelry stores on April 22, 2014. The United States’ (plaintiff’s) case was based on data from cell towers. When a cell phone receives a call, sends a text message, or downloads a webpage, the phone searches for a signal from nearby cell towers. When the phone finds a tower, it sends the tower its unique registration information so that communications involving the phone can be routed through the tower. Cell phones usually register with the closest tower geographically, but factors such as physical obstructions and network traffic may impact the tower with which a phone registers. Cell-service providers store information about cell-phone communications with their towers in cell-site-data logs. At trial, the government sought to present testimony from Christopher Hess, a cell-site-data expert, to explain how investigators used the cell-site data from the logs to determine the defendants’ locations. Hess planned to testify that if a cell-site-data log shows a phone connected to a tower at a specific time, it can be inferred that the phone was in the tower’s coverage area at that time. The cell-site data here showed that between April 21 and April 23, 2014, Calhoun, Briley, and Pembrook traveled from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to the location of the jewelry stores in Michigan, and then back to Philadelphia. The cell-site data placed the defendants in a general geographic area but did not provide their precise location. Hess also planned to testify about how phones select new towers as they move, about the location of cell towers, and about division of a cell tower’s 360-degree service area into three 120-degree sectors that can be used to narrow down location. Calhoun moved to exclude Hess’s testimony, arguing that the testimony was based on an untested granulization theory that involved determining a defendant’s specific location based on the areas of overlap between two cell-phone towers’ coverage sectors.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Michelson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 745,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership