�鶹��

Judge Theodore L. Reimel graduated from �鶹�� in 1924 and then from Temple Law in 1928. Judge Reimel served for 10 years as an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia. Afterward, he practiced for 15 years before becoming a professor at Temple Law, where he published many articles and books on criminal law. In 1953, Judge Reimel ascended to the bench of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, where he served until his passing in 1973.

In the early years of Villanova Law, Dean Harold Reuschlein brought the competition to the attention of Judge Reimel, who subsequently played an integral role in the competition’s success. Judge Reimel personally funded the awards for the participants and generously assisted with the competition. The Reimel Competition has since become a Villanova Law tradition.

The Moot Court Board would like to extend a heartfelt thank you to Seamus Duffy ’84 whose generous gift has created the John J. Duffy, Esq. ’62 Endowed Fund for Moot Court. His gift supports students and faculty competing in external advocacy competitions through the Moot Court program.

The Legacy of John J. Duffy, Esq. ’62

John J. Duffy, a member of the Villanova Law Class of 1962, is a widely recognized and accomplished criminal trial lawyer in Pennsylvania. His experience runs the gamut of state and federal criminal prosecutions, including capital homicide cases, public corruption cases and complex drug and white-collar conspiracy cases.

Duffy has also been recognized for his philanthropic work, in particular for three decades of service with The Caron Foundation and his efforts to establish and provide leadership for Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers, an assistance program that offers confidential help to distressed and impaired lawyers, judges, law students and their family members to regain their good health and professional competency.

While a student at Villanova Law, Duffy competed for the winning team of the Second Annual Theodore L. Reimel Moot Court Competition. He was also selected “best oralist” by the members of the final argument bench. Now, more than 50 years later, his legacy lives on in the outstanding teams and individuals who compete in this prestigious and highly competitive annual rite of passage for Villanova Law students.

This (fictional) case is before the United States Supreme Court involving the use of a geofence warrant to identify the suspect of a carjacking. A grand jury indicted the defendant under 18 U.S.C. § 2119 with stealing a car in the presence of a few students walking towards this car near a local college library in Savannah, GA. According to the college’s surveillance footage, around 12:30 AM on April 5, 2024, the defendant allegedly pushed one of the students to the ground as this student approached their car. The defendant then, allegedly, picked up the keys to the car and drove the car away. The student suffered a concussion but no further injuries.

The student reported this theft to campus police, who in turn, coordinated with local police to activate the theft-recovery system on the car. The local police reached out to the U.S. Attorney’s Office who assumed the case. The FBI conducted the investigation and the U.S. Attorney’s Office suggested that the police conduct a geofence warrant for mobile devices that were near the scene.

At the time, Google no longer supplied geofencing data to law enforcement and the U.S. Attorney’s Office suggested that the FBI reach out to a popular “find my phone” application, DevTraceIT. In the fictional context of this problem, this application came standard in a February 2024 update to both Apple and Android devices. The U.S. Attorney’s Office supplied language to the affiant who applied for the warrant application, which was adapted from a Google geofence warrant. When this update with DevTraceIT was pushed to devices, users received a notification telling them that the application will run in the background and that its location services can be deactivated if users change their settings or remove the application. When users remove the application, DevTraceIT no longer records user information.

The DevTraceIT process differs from Google’s process in three significant ways. First, DevTraceIT only reveals codes for devices that DevTraceIT was 95 percent sure were in that area during the time (in other words, had a margin of error of 5 percent or less). Second, DevTraceIT only provides identifiable information for three codes in each requested location. Third, DevTraceIT automatically reveals personal information when it identifies three or fewer devices within a location at a particular time, including the device code.

On April 10, 2024, an agent with the FBI, Craig Stark, applied for a warrant to search the geolocation information for two locations: (1) the area around the college library in Savannah, GA between 12:00 AM and 1:00 AM, and (2) the area around the salvage yard where the car was last identified between 1:45 AM and 2:15 AM. During the hearing for the motion to suppress, the special agent revealed that it was his first time issuing a geofence warrant and was personally unfamiliar with the cited material in the warrant application.

The magistrate judge granted the search warrant application. In an email from DevTraceIT, DevTraceIT sent five anonymous device codes for the area around the college library. The company sent two non-anonymous device codes for the salvage yard, one of which identified the defendant. The agent conducting the investigation did not ask DevTraceIT to uncover further anonymous codes, as it was apparent in the first step of the process that only the defendant was present in both areas.��

The defendant moved to suppress information related to the geofence warrant in his criminal trial, arguing that the geofence warrant was without probable cause and not sufficiently particular.

Procedural History

The Petitioner's motion to suppress was denied. The US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia found the Defendant guilty in a four-day trial and sentenced the Defendant to prison. The Petitioner appealed his conviction to the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the Court of Appeals denied the petition.

Issues Presented

The Supreme Court granted certiorari on August 27, 2025. The sole issues on appeal are:

1. Whether the execution of the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether the exclusionary rule should apply to the evidence derived from the geofence warrant.

Comprised of Faculty Members from the �鶹�� Charles Widger School of Law.

• Heather Baum, Professor of Law & Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Director, JD/MPA Program
• Steven L. Chanenson, Professor of Law & Faculty Director, The David F. and Constance B. Girard-diCarlo Center for Ethics, Integrity and Compliance
• Ann C. Juliano, Professor of Law
• Peter Ormerod, Associate Professor of Law
• Itay Ravid, Associate Professor of Law & Reuschlein Emerging Scholar
• Tuan Samahon, Professor of Law & Director, International Programs
• Rebecca Scalio, Associate Director of Academic Success
• Arthur Traldi, Adjunct Professor of Law
• Jane Voegele, Associate Professor of Law & Director, Duane Morris LLP Legal Writing Program

��

��

The Moot Court Board gratefully acknowledges the Villanova Law faculty and staff who have supported the Board in administering the 2025 Theodore L. Reimel Moot Court Competition. We are especially thankful for the attorneys who served as judges during the preliminary and round of twelve, the faculty members who judged the quarterfinals, and the distinguished panels who presided over the semifinal and final rounds. The continued success of the Reimel Competition is made possible by the generosity of these individuals who donate their time and expertise to this hallowed Villanova Law tradition.��

We would also like to express��our sincere gratitude to our Moot Court Board Advisor and the author of this year's problem and bench brief, Michael Furey. Michael’s diligence and dedication��were essential to the planning and execution of the competition, and we are especially grateful for the level of preparation his students��brought to the rounds.��We also wish to thank Professor Jessica Webb for her continued support of the Moot Court Board and her commitment to advocacy education.��

We also acknowledge the hard work and professionalism of our Reimel Administrators, Wyatt Ansel and Brianna Cooper. Their positivity and attention to detail ensured that this year’s Reimel Competition was rewarding for everyone involved. Thank you both for your exceptional service.��We would also like to thank Margo Chapin and Ry Stratton.

Finally, the Board is grateful to those who assisted with planning this event, including Dean Mark Alexander, Emmy Bebee, Bernadette Duffy, Michael Hayden, Emily Herbein, Priscilla Holmes, Michael Gallo, Mandy Goins, Lisa Infante, Kim Madden, Liz Marafino Fiola, Joe Mariani, Samantha Pilhuj, Colleen Rogers, Brian Sirak, Charissa Wilson and Tali Zeltner.