“From Wheels to Wires” – The Fourth Circuit Clarifies Ambiguous Appeal Waivers and Rejects Wiretap-Act Analogies for GPS & Cell-Site Tracking
A Comprehensive Commentary on United States v. Reginald Twitty, No. 23-4234 (4th Cir. July 22, 2025)

I. Introduction

United States v. Reginald Twitty is a sprawling Fourth Circuit decision touching multiple Fourth Amendment doctrines, plea-bargain construction, and statutory interpretation. It arose from a multi-jurisdictional narcotics investigation that progressed from a suspicious parcel in 2018 to a vehicle search, layered GPS warrants, cell-phone “ping” orders, and ultimately an arrest yielding large quantities of drugs and firearms. On appeal, Mr. Twitty challenged virtually every investigative step. The Government, however, relied heavily on a written appeal waiver embedded in Twitty’s conditional guilty plea.

The appellate panel (Judge Thacker, joined by Judges Richardson and Rushing) held:

• An ambiguous appeal waiver will not bar review where earlier investigative steps are “inextricably intertwined” with issues explicitly preserved for appeal.
• The automobile exception justified an extensive roadside search of a Nissan Sentra on a commercial car-hauler.
• Subsequent state and federal GPS tracking warrants, as well as three cell-site “ping” warrants, rested on adequate probable cause; eight-month-old drug-parcel evidence was not stale in an ongoing trafficking scheme.
• The Wiretap Act (Title III) does not govern GPS or cell-site-location orders that capture no content.
• Repeated, months-long Rule 41 return-of-warrant delays are ministerial violations requiring suppression only if the defendant shows prejudice or deliberate disregard—neither of which was present.

While unpublished, the opinion furnishes fresh guidance on plea-agreement drafting, the scope of electronic-surveillance statutes, and the evidentiary consequences of government delay.

II. Summary of the Judgment

1. Appeal Waiver – The Court refused to enforce Twitty’s waiver because it was ambiguous: although he preserved challenges to the South Carolina GPS warrant and the “wiretap violation,” deciding those claims necessarily required review of the antecedent Mississippi vehicle search and GPS warrant. Contract-interpretation principles, plus the rule that ambiguities are construed against the Government, dictated non-enforcement.

2. Vehicle Search – Deputy Johnson had probable cause (patched undercoating, bent heat shield, tool marks, suspicious bill of lading, K-9 alert) to suspect a hidden compartment; the search fell squarely inside the automobile exception.

3. GPS Warrants – Both the Mississippi state warrant and the subsequent South Carolina federal warrant were supported by a “substantial basis.” The eight-month gap after the initial parcel interception did not render the evidence stale because drug trafficking is a continuing enterprise.

4. Cell-Site “Ping” Warrants – Probable cause existed independent of the GPS data. The Court rejected Twitty’s invitation to graft Title III’s “necessity” requirement onto these orders.

5. Wiretap Act – No “content” interception occurred; thus Title III was inapposite.

6. Rule 41 Delays – Although warrant returns were egregiously late, Twitty demonstrated no prejudice and no intentional disregard by agents; suppression was unwarranted.

Accordingly, the district court’s denial of suppression and Twitty’s 144-month sentence were affirmed.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited & Their Influence

• United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) – GPS installation is a “search.” Framed the need for a warrant but did not extend Title III standards.
• Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018) – Historical cell-site data requires a warrant, not Wiretap-Act procedures. The panel analogized real-time pings to Carpenter, not to Title III cases.
• Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) – “Totality of the circumstances” probable-cause standard governed every warrant reviewed.
• United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) – Good-faith principle was argued but ultimately unnecessary once probable cause was found.
• United States v. Yooho Weon, 722 F.3d 583 (4th Cir. 2013) – Ambiguous plea terms construed against the Government; key groundwork for refusing to enforce the waiver.
• United States v. Simons, 206 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2000) – Distinction between constitutional and ministerial Rule 41 violations; lack of prejudice defeats suppression.
• United States v. Gastiaburo, 16 F.3d 582 (4th Cir. 1994) and Supreme Court cases Meyers, Thomas – Automobile exception extends to immobilised or impounded cars.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Contract Principles & Appeal Waiver
   The plea agreement said Twitty could appeal the court’s order “only as it relates” to two suppression motions. Because those motions relied upon earlier investigative steps, the waiver’s scope was murky. Applying standard contract canons (whole-document reading, contra proferentem against the drafter), the panel held ambiguity inescapable.
2. Automobile Exception Robustly Applied
   Probable cause existed before the carpet was lifted. Deputy Johnson’s on-scene observations paralleled those historically accepted by courts—e.g., hidden-compartment indicators, suspicious shipping paperwork, and a positive drug-dog alert. Once probable cause exists for a vehicle, the exception “justifies the search of every part” (quoting Ross). Judge Thacker’s separate concurrence nonetheless questioned the doctrine’s breadth when no exigency actually exists (the car was immobilised on a hauler).
3. Staleness Doctrine
   Eight-month-old parcel data was not stale because drug trafficking is a protracted, continuous crime. The Court distinguished United States v. Doyle (2011) where the affidavit lacked temporal anchors.
4. Wiretap Act’s Inapplicability
   Title III governs interception of “contents” of wire/oral communications. GPS coordinates and CSLI are non-content, hence only Fourth-Amendment probable cause applies. Twitty cited Giordano and Rice; both involved actual interceptions of voice/content, making them irrelevant.
5. Rule 41 Returns
   Repeated filing lapses—some over a year late—were “ministerial.” Without prejudice (no trial disadvantage; defendant received returns well before trial) or proof of deliberate disregard, suppression would be a windfall.

C. Impact on Future Litigation

• Plea-Agreement Drafting – Prosecutors must draft carve-outs with precision. If an appellate reservation references a specific suppression issue, underlying steps feeding into that issue may also escape the waiver.
• Electronic-Surveillance Litigation – Defendants seeking to impose the Wiretap Act’s stringent necessity standard on location-tracking orders now face fresh headwinds. The panel’s concise dismissal will be persuasive, even if unpublished.
• Rule 41 Compliance – Although suppression was denied, the opinion admonishes law-enforcement agencies to tighten administrative controls. Expect district courts to scrutinise repeated or prolonged return delays more harshly.
• Automobile-Exception Debate – Judge Thacker’s concurrence adds to growing academic and judicial criticism that the doctrine, untethered from true exigency, allows warrant-free searches of essentially immobilised vehicles.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

1. Appeal Waiver

A clause in a plea agreement where the defendant gives up (waives) the right to challenge the conviction or sentence on appeal. If ambiguous, courts read it against the Government.

2. Automobile Exception

Police may search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence. Two traditional rationales: (a) vehicles are mobile (evidence could drive away), (b) drivers have reduced privacy because cars are heavily regulated.

3. GPS Tracking Warrant vs. Cell-Site “Ping” Order

Both authorise real-time location tracking—GPS trackers physically attached to an object, “pings” request network-generated coordinates from a phone provider. Both are “searches” under Jones and require probable-cause warrants post-Carpenter.

4. Wiretap Act (Title III)

A 1968 statute regulating interception of the content of wire, oral, or electronic communications (e.g., phone calls). It imposes added safeguards like a “necessity” showing and minimisation procedures. Mere location data = not “content,” so Title III does not apply.

5. Rule 41 Return

After executing a search or tracking warrant, officers must file a “return” with the issuing judge, listing what was seized and when. This keeps the judiciary informed and preserves transparency. Delays are generally “ministerial” errors—not constitutional—unless prejudicial.

V. Conclusion

United States v. Twitty reminds litigants and courts alike that:

• Waiver language must be crystalline; ambiguities reopen appellate doors.
• The automobile exception, as currently construed, reaches stationary vehicles on transport trucks, though its scope continues to attract judicial skepticism.
• Probable cause—not Title III’s necessity test—governs GPS and cell-site location searches when no communication content is captured.
• Staleness is contextual; ongoing conspiracies extend evidentiary shelf-life.
• Administrative lapses under Rule 41 are unlikely to trigger suppression absent demonstrable prejudice or bad faith, yet courts expect greater prosecutorial diligence.

While unpublished and thus non-precedential, Twitty’s detailed reasoning—especially on appeal-waiver ambiguity and Wiretap-Act inapplicability—will undoubtedly inform future suppression litigation throughout the Fourth Circuit and beyond.