Maryland man argues arrest using cellphone tracking device violates the Fourth Amendment

RICHMOND, Va. (CN) — A Maryland man arrested after police used a device mimicking a cellphone tower to find his phone —  and him — argued before a Fourth Circuit panel Tuesday that police needed a warrant.

The Baltimore Police Department, which was attempting to arrest Kerron Andrews on charges of triple attempted murder after a shooting during a drug deal, secured a court order allowing them to use a cell-site simulator to obtain his real-time location information in May 2014.

The police’s court order did not satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, Andrews said, and the officers are not protected by qualified immunity because they did not disclose their plan to use a specific device when seeking the order.

The signal the device emits pierces through the walls of private residences, Mike Pichini, attorney for Andrews, told the Fourth Circuit panel, and largely renders the phone useless.

“What the court below fails to realize here is that the PRO [pen register order] could not possibly have acted as a good faith warrant because it doesn’t need to name the technology, but it certainly needs to tell you what the technology is going to do,” Pichini said. “And all the PRO does is say that what they are seeking to do is install something on Mr. Andrews’ phone.”

The signal rendered it inoperable except for its use as a tracking device, Pichini said. Nothing was installed on his phone, but it was “basically seized.”

“While in his position, the phone was literally taken out of his control,” he said, arguing the officers should be subject to Andrews’ claims and not protected by qualified immunity. “Why don’t they know that simply turning on any piece of equipment that is going to pierce the walls does somehow not require a warrant?” he asked.

“Does that mean that, at the time that’s relevant in question, would every single police officer, reasonable police officer, know that what they’re doing here violates the Fourth Amendment?” U.S. Circuit Judge Toby Heytens, a Joe Biden appointee, asked, adding: “I don’t see any plausible argument that they would.”

The officers’ actions were reasonable and constitutional, Natalie Amato, counsel for defendants, countered.

“Whether a document is called a warrant or an order is not material so long as it satisfies the mandate of the Fourth Amendment,” she said. “Andrews’ attempt to subject the warrant to, in this case, to a hyper-technical, non-common sense review must be rejected.”

Does probable cause and a valid warrant allow police to send electronic signals into a residence, U.S. Circuit Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. asked.

“Does it matter that the signal goes into the residence or not?” the Donald Trump appointee pressed. “Does that fact matter?”

The technology does not reveal anything “intimate” about the home, Amato said, including who is inside.

“The Fourth Amendment jurisprudence cannot be so stuck as technology evolves, as thinking of searches to just involve a physical place necessarily," she said. “The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.”

There is also no evidence the officers obtained any content on Andrews’ phone or that they tried to use it against him in his criminal trial, she added. The officers were attempting to obtain an order supported by probable cause, which they believed was the functional equivalent of a warrant in regards to the technology.

“They tried to obtain what they thought was the appropriate document, and they tried to comply with the Fourth Amendment,” she said. “They went above and beyond in describing the technology and what they intended to do.”

Andrews has not had his constitutional rights violated, the officers argued in their response brief, and their actions were reasonable and appropriate. They had a valid warrant for his arrest, and the court order was specific and allowed them to use the cellular tracking device. The order served as a functional equivalent to a warrant, they argued; they were able to uniquely identify the phone, and the device was narrowed in to target Andrews’ phone only.

The officers including the phrase “probable cause” in the application for the order “does not magically convert a PRO into a viable search warrant,” Andrews said in his opening brief, adding that “The [Maryland] District Court’s opinion, once again, reads as if the court made its decision and worked backwards to find the necessary support.”

The case had previously been before the Fourth Circuit, which expressed concerns that the order did not specifically authorize a cell-site simulator and that the device may have searched devices other than Andrews’. The court sent the case back down, directing the lower court to conduct more fact-finding.

In May 2025, the defendants secured a summary judgment ruling in their favor, with U.S. District Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher concluding the search required a warrant but that the order the police secured was sufficient and effectively acted as a warrant. Andrews’ Fourth Amendment rights were not violated, she ruled.

Pichini asked for additional fact-finding and for the case to be remanded back to Maryland, and Amato asked for the panel to uphold the lower court’s judgment finding in favor of the defendants.

The parties also presented before the panel over sealed topics after public arguments concluded. The panel also included U.S. Circuit Judge Nicole Berner, a Biden appointee.

A representative for the Baltimore Police Department said it does not comment on pending litigation. Pichini did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

Follow @SKHaulenbeek Follow @shaulenbeek.bsky.social