context: Capshaw had no reasonable expectation of privacy in these Sprint Nextel records. Regardless of any subjective expectation (about which we have no evidence), it was unreasonable for Capshaw to assume that information about his cell phone calls could not be made available to the government by the third-party telephone company.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 611 F.3d 828, 843
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that defendant lacked reasonable expectation of privacy in phone and fax numbers dialed
citation_a.sentence: See id. at 744, 99 S.Ct. at 2582. (“When he used his phone, petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and ‘exposed’ that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business.”); see also Rehberg v. Paulk, 611 F.3d 828, 843 (11th Cir.2010) (holding that defendant lacked reasonable expectation of privacy in phone and fax numbers dialed).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 99 S.Ct. 2582, 2582
citation_b.parenthetical: "When he used his phone, petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and 'exposed' that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business."
citation_b.sentence: See id. at 744, 99 S.Ct. at 2582. (“When he used his phone, petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and ‘exposed’ that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business.”); see also Rehberg v. Paulk, 611 F.3d 828, 843 (11th Cir.2010) (holding that defendant lacked reasonable expectation of privacy in phone and fax numbers dialed).