Exhibit B states that during the course of the investigation LE learned that Rivera and Garcia stayed at the Budget Inn in Tallahassee in June. They then go on to say that cell communications from "the handset" (i.e., one handset) are consistent with them spending the night at the Budget Inn. But they don't say whose handset. They also say that during the investigation LE learned that Rivera and Garcia rented a car with a surreptitious tracking device in June. They then discuss a single handset apparently having been used to conduct surveillance on the victim on June 5th. They repeatedly refer to a single handset without specifying whose number it was. It sounds like you're right -- I would bet that Rivera had his phone turned on, Garcia had his phone turned off, and LE learned that they were staying at the Budget Inn in June from the witness. Wonder how they learned that *both* Rivera and Garcia "rented a car with surreptitious tracking" -- maybe they learned from the witness that the two had rented the car together, and the rental agency confirmed the rental and provided info regarding the tracking device. Just speculating here based on what's in the affidavit.
This may be a naive question, but can LE gain access to the substance of the text messages through a warrant served on the cell carrier(s)?
