Justice William Kelly
The court signed an eavesdropping warrant permitting prosecutors to intercept voice and digital communications relating to a narcotics conspiracy from Giddens’ cell phone. Monitors overheard Giddens speaking about committing a robbery. Detectives learned of an approximate location of the robbery by "pinging" Giddens’ phone, and were alerted to an armed robbery by two men at a deli, noting Giddens’ phone converged in that area at the time of the incident. Detectives located Giddens, and arrested him, noting money scattered in the front of the car, and a flexible hockey mask in his pocket. When asked about the mask, Giddens responded, "you already know everything." The court found detectives had a reasonable suspicion as legally intercepted calls revealed the car’s occupants were planning a robbery. It also ruled Giddens’ statements at the scene were admissible as they were spontaneously made. Also, the court denied suppression of alleged fruits of intercepted phone calls from improper minimizationa good faith effort to keep the number of non-pertinent calls intercepted to the smallest practicable numberfinding prosecutors met their burden as monitors were adequately instructed on procedures, including the "two minute rule."
