OWENS, Circuit Judge:
Defendant Kyle Korte appeals from his convictions for bank robbery. During his crime spree, Korte was on parole and had consented to warrantless, suspicionless searches of his person, residence, and any property under his control. Relying on this parole condition, officers placed a Global Positioning System (GPS) device on his car and later searched its trunk. Officers also obtained Kortes historical cell site location information (CSLI) by court order. On appeal, Korte primarily challenges the district courts denial of his suppression motions as to each of these searches. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In a world of cybercrime and identity theft, Korte stole money the old-fashioned way - he robbed banks. After serving time in state prison for bank robbery, Korte was paroled in August 2016. As a parolee in California, Korte was subject to search or seizure ... at any time of the day or night, with or without a search warrant or with or without cause. CAL. PENAL CODE § 3067(b)(3) ; see also id. § 3067(a). On October 25, 2016, Korte acknowledged his parole conditions, including that he was now subject to searches of [y]ou, your residence, and any property under your control.
In October 2016, the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department (LASD) began investigating a series of bank robberies. The first robbery took place on October 7. A masked robber entered a bank and demanded all your hundreds. The frightened teller, protected by bulletproof glass, activated the silent alarm and retreated to a back office. The robber left with no money. On October 12, the masked robber targeted another bank, this time brandishing a toy gun. He was more successful this go-around, escaping with $1,600. He then hit two more banks on October 27. Again displaying the toy gun, the robber pocketed $2,200 and $7,000. In total, the masked robber stole less than $11,000 - not a Neil McCauley heist by any means.
Working with LASD, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began to suspect that Korte was the masked robber. Surveillance video from one of the robberies showed a car registered to the address that Korte provided to his parole officer. An LASD officer who saw video of the masked robber also reported that the individual resembled Korte, who the officer knew was on parole for bank robbery.
On November 4, 2016, without a warrant or Kortes consent, LASD placed a GPS tracking device on Kortes car and periodically monitored the vehicles movements over the next six days. That same day, the Government obtained a court order under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d), to acquire Kortes CSLI. This information placed Kortes cell phone near three of the four banks at the time of the respective robberies.
On November 10, 2016, LASD learned that the FBI had obtained an arrest warrant for Korte. Officers followed Korte as he drove from his home to a bank and parked nearby, seeming to surveil his next target. An officer saw Korte open the cars trunk and place something inside. Shortly thereafter, they arrested Korte and searched the car. The officers search of the trunk revealed the toy gun used during the three armed robberies and the shirt Korte had been wearing while casing the bank just prior to his arrest.
A grand jury indicted Korte for one count of attempted bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and three counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d). Korte pled not guilty and moved to suppress (1) the evidence found in his cars trunk, (2) the information derived from the GPS tracker on his car, and (3) his CSLI. The district court denied all three suppression motions. The court reasoned that Kortes parole status permitted the warrantless search of the trunk and placement of the GPS tracker on his car. As for the CSLI, it held that even if the acquisition of this information violated Kortes Fourth Amendment rights, see Carpenter v. United States , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 2206, 201 L.Ed.2d 507 (2018), the good-faith exception clearly applied based on the case law at that time.
Korte went to trial. As to Count 1 - the unsuccessful robbery - the bank teller testified that even though bulletproof glass separated her from the robber and she saw no weapon, she was nevertheless [k]ind of panicked, [s]hocked, and [s]cared. Korte filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, focusing on Count 1. The district court rejected his argument that the Government failed to prove the element of force and violence, or by intimidation, as 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) requires. Citing the tellers testimony with regard to a mask and the demand, the court found sufficient evidence of intimidation to send the matter to the jury.
The jury returned a guilty verdict as to all four counts. Korte was sentenced to 210 months in prison.
II. DISCUSSION
We review de novo the denial of Kortes suppression motions. See United States v. Zapien , 861 F.3d 971, 974 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). We address each search - of his cars trunk, the GPS tracker on his car, and the acquisition of his CSLI - in turn.
A. Search of the Trunk
We first examine whether Kortes parole-search condition authorized the warrantless search of his cars trunk. See United States v. Cervantes , 859 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2017) (A search of a parolee that complies with the terms of a valid search condition will usually be deemed reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.).
California Penal Code section 3067(b)(3) provides that every parolee is subject to search or seizure ... at any time of the day or night, with or without a search warrant or with or without cause. In Samson v. California , 547 U.S. 843, 846, 126 S.Ct. 2193, 165 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006), the United States Supreme Court reviewed Californias parole-search condition to determine whether a suspicionless search, conducted under the authority of [ section 3067 ], violates the Constitution. The Court first reasoned that parole is more akin to imprisonment. Id . at 850, 126 S.Ct. 2193. Because parolees have severely diminished expectations of privacy by virtue of their status alone - even less than probationers - and because [t]he States interests in supervising parolees and reducing recidivism are substantial, the Court upheld Californias parole-search condition. Id . at 852-53, 126 S.Ct. 2193.
Korte does not - and cannot - argue that officers unlawfully searched his car. He admits that he rented the car and referred to it as my car. As property under [his] control, Californias parole-search condition authorized the warrantless search of it. See, e.g. , United States v. Caseres , 533 F.3d 1064, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that a search of the parolees car would have been lawful if the officer had known that the defendant was on parole).
Yet, Korte contends that a lawful parole search of his car does not extend to the trunk because the trunk is not similarly property under [his] control. We reject his narrow interpretation of this condition. Property is subject to search when a parolee exhibit[s] a sufficiently strong connection to [the property in question] to demonstrate control over it. United States v. Grandberry , 730 F.3d 968, 980 (9th Cir. 2013) (defining property under [a parolees] control); see also Cervantes , 859 F.3d at 1183 (explaining that having a key to and belongings inside a hotel room sufficiently demonstrate control, even if the room is co-occupied). Consistent with our understanding of the condition, the Supreme Court of California explained that a parolee controls property based on the nexus between the parolee and the area or items searched, including the nature of that area or item and how close and accessible the area or item is to the parolee. People v. Schmitz , 55 Cal.4th 909, 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 640, 288 P.3d 1259, 1270 (2012) (holding that a parolee, who is only a passenger in a third-partys vehicle, is in control of areas within his reach in the passenger compartment).
Kortes uncontested control over the car was sufficient to permit a warrantless search of its trunk. In any event, his conduct also illustrated a sufficiently close nexus to the trunk itself. Officers observed him putting things inside the trunk.
Permitting a warrantless search of the trunk of a parolees car is also consistent with broader Fourth Amendment precedent. Generally, a lawful search of a fixed space or premise extends to its entire area, whether or not that requires opening a confined space: [N]ice distinctions between closets, drawers, and containers, in the case of a home, or between glove compartments, upholstered seats, trunks, and wrapped packages, in the case of a vehicle, must give way to the interest in the prompt and efficient completion of the task at hand. United States v. Ross , 456 U.S. 798, 821, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982). This reasoning applies to a cars trunk. See, e.g. , id. at 825, 102 S.Ct. 2157 (If probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search.); United States v. Ewing , 638 F.3d 1226, 1231 (9th Cir. 2011) ([I]f a law enforcement officer has probable cause to search a vehicle, that probable cause extends to all contents in the vehicle that could be connected to the suspected activity.); United States v. McWeeney , 454 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that consent to search a defendants car extends to the trunk). We also note that Kortes proposed distinction between a car and trunk was already rejected by the Supreme Court of California in the context of a probationer - who has more Fourth Amendment protection than Korte as a parolee. See Lilienthal , 150 Cal.Rptr. 910, 587 P.2d at 711 (We conclude that the officers were justified in searching defendants car trunk pursuant to defendants consent to warrantless searches as a condition of his probation.).
As property under his control, Korte fails to explain how searching his cars trunk would offend the Fourth Amendment when a warrantless search of his home - the apex of constitutionally protected places - would not. See United States v. Lopez , 474 F.3d 1208, 1213-14 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding the warrantless search of a parolees home), overruled on other grounds by United States v. King , 687 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (per curiam); see also Florida v. Jardines , 569 U.S. 1, 6, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013) (But when it comes to the Fourth Amendment, the home is first among equals.). The district court summed it up well: If an individuals residence falls within the scope of an appropriate search under the parolee provisions, how would a trunk not?
Accordingly, the district court correctly held that the search of Kortes trunk was a lawful parole search.
B. Placement and Use of the GPS Tracker
We next decide whether Kortes parole-search condition permitted the warrantless placement of a GPS device on his car and the subsequent surveillance of his cars movements.
Installing a GPS tracker on a car constitutes a search, typically requiring a warrant. See United States v. Jones , 565 U.S. 400, 404, 132 S.Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012). The application of this principle to a parolees car, however, is less clear.
While the parties agree that placing the device on Kortes car was a search under the Fourth Amendment, they disagree on whether doing so without a warrant offends the Constitution. In light of Samson s strong pronouncement that parolees in California have very limited Fourth Amendment rights, 547 U.S. at 851-52, 126 S.Ct. 2193, we agree with the district court that this was a lawful parole search.
Our decision in United States v. Johnson , 875 F.3d 1265 (9th Cir. 2017), instructs us not to necessarily apply a newly established Fourth Amendment protection to parolees. In Riley v. California , 573 U.S. 373, 386, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014), the United States Supreme Court held that the warrantless search of an arrestees cell phone was unlawful. The Court emphasized the significant privacy intrusion that arose when searching a persons cell phone. Id. at 393, 134 S.Ct. 2473 ; see also Johnson , 875 F.3d at 1274 (noting that Riley was premised on privacy interests implicated in cell phone searches [being] particularly acute). Cell phones, the Supreme Court said, are now a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that place vast quantities of personal information literally in the hands of individuals. Riley , 573 U.S. at 385-86, 134 S.Ct. 2473. Because cell phones collect[ ] in one place many distinct types of information ... that reveal much more in combination than any isolated record, searching a cell phone would give law enforcement the unparalleled ability to reconstruct [t]he sum of an individuals private life. Id . at 394, 134 S.Ct. 2473.
Despite the Courts cautionary words, we held that Riley did not apply to parolees. Johnson , 875 F.3d at 1275 ; but see United States v. Lara , 815 F.3d 605, 612 (9th Cir. 2016) (applying Riley to the warrantless search of a probationers cell phone). Rather, noting that the balance of privacy interests and factual circumstances in this context are different, we permitted the warrantless search of a parolees cell phone. Johnson , 875 F.3d at 1273.
In light of our ruling in Johnson , we are hard-put to say that the warrantless placement of a GPS tracker on a parolees car is impermissible. If an officer can conduct a warrantless search of a parolees cell phone - an object that is [t]he sum of an individuals private life, Riley , 573 U.S. at 394, 134 S.Ct. 2473 - placing a GPS device on a parolees car cannot logically demand more constitutional protection. Although a GPS tracker may create a summary of a parolees public movements, it offers none of the vast quantities of personal information that a cell phone does. Id. at 386, 134 S.Ct. 2473.
The States interest in supervising parolees is also particularly strong here. See Samson , 547 U.S. at 853, 126 S.Ct. 2193 (referencing the States substantial interests in reducing recidivism, promoting reintegration, and deterring future criminal conduct). Tracking a parolees movements by car can be a critical tool for monitoring this group. Its value is well illustrated here: Korte returned to a life of crime just months after his release from prison, but LASD was able to investigate Korte and prevented other armed robberies by tracking his movements. In Johnson , we explained that requiring officers to obtain a warrant before searching a parolees cell phone would often undermine the states ability to supervise effectively. 875 F.3d at 1274. We have similar concerns with requiring officers to obtain a warrant before tracking a parolees vehicular movements.
Lastly, we note that our decision aligns with another courts interpretation of Californias parole-search condition. In People v. Zichwic , 94 Cal.App.4th 944, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 733, 738-39 (2001), the California Court of Appeal considered the warrantless placement of an electronic monitoring device on a parolees car. It held that even assum[ing] that attaching an electronic tracking device to the undercarriage of defendants truck constituted a search, it was authorized by defendants parole search condition. Id. at 740. Granted, Zichwic differs in that it considered the use of a beeper, id. at 738, rather than a GPS device - investigatory methods treated differently under the Fourth Amendment. Compare United States v. Karo , 468 U.S. 705, 713, 104 S.Ct. 3296, 82 L.Ed.2d 530 (1984) ([N]o Fourth Amendment interest ... was infringed by the installation of the beeper.), with Jones , 565 U.S. at 409 n.6, 132 S.Ct. 945 (noting that GPS tracking is a more intrusive law enforcement practice than a beeper).
Nonetheless, we believe that Zichwic is, at minimum, informative. Although it was decided almost two decades before Jones , its holding was unaffected because it had assumed that placing a tracking device on a car constituted a search. Zichwic , 114 Cal.Rptr.2d at 740. The Supreme Court of California has not since interpreted the parole-search condition differently. And, while a beeper and GPS device might differ in their tracking capabilities, the court in Zichwic at least concluded, as we do, that the States need for electronically monitoring a parolees movements outweighs the privacy interests at issue. Id. at 739-40.
We do not disregard the importance of Jones. We acknowledge that GPS monitoring generates a precise, comprehensive record of a persons public movements. Jones , 565 U.S. at 415, 132 S.Ct. 945 (Sotomayor, J., concurring). However, in following precedent distinguishing Fourth Amendment rights in the parolee context, we hold that the warrantless placement of a GPS tracker on Kortes car does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
C. Warrantless CSLI Acquisition
Finally, we consider whether the district court should have excluded the CSLI evidence, acquired without a warrant, as a Fourth Amendment violation. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the constitutionality of warrantless CSLI acquisition before the district court could rule on Kortes suppression motion. Carpenter v. United States , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2211, 198 L.Ed.2d 657 (2017) (mem.). As such, the district court did not address the constitutional issue before it, but denied Kortes motion under the Fourth Amendments good-faith exception. We, therefore, consider only a narrow issue: whether the good-faith exception applies to the warrantless acquisition of a defendants CSLI before Carpenter v. United States , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 2206, 201 L.Ed.2d 507 (2018).
In Carpenter , the Supreme Court summarized CSLI and how this technology permits almost real-time compilation of a persons location during any given period:
Cell phones continuously scan their environment looking for the best signal, which generally comes from the closest cell site. Most modern devices ... tap into the wireless network several times a minute whenever their signal is on, even if the owner is not using one of the phones features. Each time the phone connects to a cell site, it generates a time-stamped record known as cell-site location information (CSLI).
Id. at 2211. The Court wrestled with how to apply this new phenomenon under the Fourth Amendment, id. at 2216, noting that it does not fit neatly under existing precedents, id. at 2214. It ultimately concluded, however, that the Government must obtain a warrant to access a persons CSLI from a wireless carrier, and could no longer rely on a court order under § 2703(d) of the SCA. Id . at 2221.
Although the Government obtained Kortes CSLI without a warrant, he is not automatically entitled to relief. See United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 906-07, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (explaining that whether there was a Fourth Amendment violation and [w]hether the exclusionary sanction is appropriately imposed are separate questions). Illinois v. Krull , 480 U.S. 340, 342, 350, 107 S.Ct. 1160, 94 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987), established an important exception to the exclusionary rule: Evidence obtained by the Government, acting in objectively reasonable reliance upon a statute that is ultimately found to violate the Fourth Amendment, does not require suppression.
Because we find the Government reasonably relied on the SCA when it obtained Kortes CSLI, we affirm the district courts application of the Fourth Amendments good-faith exception. See also United States v. Camou , 773 F.3d 932, 944 (9th Cir. 2014) (placing the burden on the government to prove it acted in good faith). Before Carpenter , the SCA authorized a government entity to request a provider of electronic communication service ... to disclose a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or a customer of such service. 18 U.S.C. § 2703(c)(1). The statute explicitly authorized retrieval of these records by court order if the Government offer[ed] specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that ... the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation - a more lenient standard than probable cause. Id. § 2703(d).
When the Government obtained Kortes CSLI - before Carpenter was decided - acting by court order was still authorized. Moreover, we cannot say that the Government had any reason to doubt the SCAs constitutionality, such that it may have been acting in bad faith. See Krull , 480 U.S. at 355, 107 S.Ct. 1160 ([T]he standard of reasonableness ... is an objective one.). CSLI remained a relatively novel form of evidence. And, although we had not yet commented on the constitutionality of warrantless CSLI acquisition, a number of our sister circuits had. All had affirmed the SCAs constitutionality under the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Gilton , 917 F.3d 1068, 1078 (9th Cir. 2019) (explaining that, at least as of 2012, the prevailing belief was that CSLI data was not protected by the Fourth Amendment); see also United States v. Graham , 824 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2016) (en banc); United States v. Carpenter , 819 F.3d 880, 884 (6th Cir. 2016) ; United Statesv. Davis , 785 F.3d 498, 511 (11th Cir. 2015) (en banc); In re Application of the U.S. for Historical Cell Site Data , 724 F.3d 600, 615 (5th Cir. 2013) ; In re Application of the U.S. for an Order Directing a Provider of Elec. Commcn Serv. to Disclose Records to the Govt , 620 F.3d 304, 313 (3d Cir. 2010).
As explained in Krull , it is hardly objectively unreasonable to rely on a then-lawful statute when courts were upholding it or similar legislative schemes. 480 U.S. at 358-59, 107 S.Ct. 1160. Officials should not be expected to question the judgment of the legislature that passed the law, particularly when confronted with the pattern of judicial holdings as existed here. Id. at 350, 107 S.Ct. 1160. Any defect in the [SCA], therefore, was not sufficiently obvious so as to render [the Governments] reliance upon the statute objectively unreasonable. Id. at 359, 107 S.Ct. 1160. The Supreme Courts own sharply divided opinion in Carpenter brings this point to bear. See 138 S.Ct. at 2217 (explaining that the CSLI issue presents novel circumstances); see also id. at 2223 (referring to the majoritys decision as a stark departure from relevant Fourth Amendment precedents) (Kennedy, J., dissenting).
Moreover, our application of Krull is anything but novel. Several other circuits have already invoked this good-faith exception when presented with similar facts. See United States v. Goldstein , 914 F.3d 200, 203-05 (3d Cir. 2019) ; United States v. Curtis , 901 F.3d 846, 848-49 (7th Cir. 2018) ; see also United States v. Chambers , 751 Fed.Appx. 44, 46-47 (2d Cir. 2018) (explaining that the authorities sought information from third parties by complying with the SCA and [r]eliance on a federal statute gives rise to a presumption of good faith (citing Krull , 480 U.S. at 349, 107 S.Ct. 1160 )). Others have analyzed the issue similarly, although without directly invoking Krull . See United States v. Joyner , 899 F.3d 1199, 1205 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (noting that the Government complied with the requirements of the SCA in obtaining the orders to compel cell site records while it was still lawful); United States v. Chavez , 894 F.3d 593, 608 (4th Cir. 2018) (refusing to apply the exclusionary rule because investigators in this case reasonably relied on court orders and the [SCA] in obtaining the cell site records). Similarly, we recently refused to exclude CSLI data obtained in good-faith reliance on a warrant, later deemed to be defective. Gilton , 917 F.3d at 1078-79.
Finally, we note that our decision accords with the exclusionary rules limited purpose to deter future Fourth Amendment violations, rather than remedy the rights of a single aggrieved party. See United States v. Calandra , 414 U.S. 338, 347-48, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974) ; see also Krull , 480 U.S. at 347, 107 S.Ct. 1160. For us to exclude CSLI, obtained in good faith based on a then-lawful legislative scheme, would do nothing to prevent future Fourth Amendment violations. See Davis v. United States , 564 U.S. 229, 236-37, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011) (The [exclusionary] rules sole purpose, we have repeatedly held, is to deter future Fourth Amendment violations.). With the exclusionary rule as our last resort, not our first impulse, Hudson v. Michigan , 547 U.S. 586, 591, 126 S.Ct. 2159, 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006), we hold that CSLI acquired pre- Carpenter is admissible - so long as the Government satisfied the SCAs then-lawful requirements - under Krull s good-faith exception.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons provided above, we affirm the district courts denial of Kortes suppression motions and his convictions for bank robbery.
AFFIRMED.
There are two limitations on this condition. First, the officer conducting the search must know at the time that the individual is currently on parole. See Moreno v. Baca , 431 F.3d 633, 641 (9th Cir. 2005). Second, the search cannot be arbitrary, capricious, or harassing. See Cal. Penal Code § 3067(d) (It is not the intent of the Legislature to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct searches for the sole purpose of harassment.); see also Samson , 547 U.S. at 856, 126 S.Ct. 2193 (The concern that Californias suspicionless search system gives officers unbridled discretion to conduct searches ... is belied by Californias prohibition on arbitrary, capricious or harassing searches. (citations omitted)).
Here, it is undisputed that the officers knew that Korte was on parole, and there is no evidence the officers engaged in an arbitrary, capricious, or harassing search. Nor does Korte contend he was unaware of the parole-search condition. See People v. Lilienthal , 22 Cal.3d 891, 150 Cal.Rptr. 910, 587 P.2d 706, 711 (1978) (The condition itself provides general notice to a defendant that he or his belongings may be subjected to warrantless searches.).
We take no stance on the constitutionality of acquiring a parolees CSLI without a warrant.
Korte also argues that his Count 1 conviction for attempted bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) cannot stand because there was insufficient evidence of intimidation. Longstanding precedent forecloses this argument. Kortes demand for money and use of a mask satisfies intimidation under § 2113(a). See, e.g. , United States v. Hopkins , 703 F.2d 1102, 1103 (9th Cir. 1983) ([T]he threats implicit in [defendants] written and verbal demands for money provide sufficient evidence of intimidation to support the jurys verdict.); United States v. Bingham , 628 F.2d 548, 549 (9th Cir. 1980) ([E]xpress threats of bodily harm, threatening body motions, or the physical possibility of concealed weapon[s] ... have never been held to be requirements for a § 2113(a) conviction.).