SAN JOSE, Calif. — A California appellate court reversed a robbery conviction Oct. 20 after finding that San Jose police violated the Fourth Amendment by obtaining a suspect’s cellphone location data from Verizon without a warrant or a legally sufficient emergency justification.
The Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled in People v. Andrade that the San Jose Police Department improperly obtained historical and real-time cellphone location records from Verizon during a March 2022 armed robbery and carjacking investigation.
According to the opinion, two armed individuals approached a vehicle, threatened its occupants and stole their belongings and car. Marcos Andres Andrade was later identified as a suspect after investigators located a vehicle connected to the robbery near his residence.
Detective Arturo Mendoza submitted an emergency disclosure request to Verizon, seeking 24 hours of historical cellphone location data and 48 hours of real-time location tracking without first obtaining a warrant.
Approximately two hours later, Verizon provided the requested information. Investigators subsequently obtained search and arrest warrants as part of the investigation.
Andrade challenged the warrantless search, but the trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence. He pleaded no contest to second-degree robbery, admitted a prior strike conviction and received a four-year prison sentence.
On appeal, prosecutors argued that immediate tracking was necessary to protect public safety, prevent the destruction of evidence and stop the suspects from escaping.
The appellate court disagreed, explaining that officers had already recovered the stolen vehicle and were monitoring another vehicle associated with the suspects.
The opinion stated “the seriousness of the offense does not, by itself, give rise to an exigent circumstance. Even a homicide does not warrant a blanket exception to the Fourth Amendment on that basis.”
The court determined that investigators had not established an immediate emergency justifying the warrantless request.
California Penal Code Section 1546.1 establishes legal requirements for accessing electronic information.
Under the law, authorities may obtain electronic information without prior judicial approval in “an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to a person” that requires immediate access to the information.
The law also requires authorities to seek court approval within three court days and explain the circumstances establishing the emergency. If the court determines that a qualifying emergency did not exist, it must order the information destroyed.
Verizon’s United States Transparency Report for the first half of 2026 explains the company’s emergency disclosure procedures.
According to Verizon, officers “must certify in writing that there is an emergency involving the danger of death or serious physical injury to a person that requires disclosure without delay.”
The company identifies violent crimes, kidnappings, hostage situations and missing-person searches as examples of situations that may qualify as emergencies.
Verizon reported receiving 35,001 emergency requests from law enforcement nationwide during the first half of 2026. It also received 29,197 warrants or probable cause orders for cellphone location information.
The figures do not establish how many emergency requests involved cellphone tracking or how many originated with the San Jose Police Department.
In Andrade’s case, Detective Mendoza testified that emergency disclosure forms can be used to request subscriber information, historical cellphone location information and real-time tracking from wireless carriers.
According to the appellate opinion, Mendoza identified several factors officers considered before submitting such requests, including whether an investigation involved a violent felony, weapons or an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death.
The court wrote that investigators “bypassed the warrant requirement and instead went directly to Verizon without a proper justification to do so.”
The appellate court reversed Andrade’s judgment, ordered suppression of the unlawfully obtained location data and directed the lower court to determine whether additional evidence should be excluded.
In its decision, the court directed the lower court to “permit Andrade to withdraw his no contest plea. If Andrade elects not to withdraw his no contest plea, the trial court shall reinstate the judgment.”
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
