A person who uses a false name to obtain a cellular phone nonetheless maintains a Fourth Amendment privacy interest in communications made with that phone. Although the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in upholding the wiretap in this case, the court did rule that the use of an alias to obtain a cell phone does not preclude a reasonable expectation of privacy in the use of that phone. The court analogized the situation to circumstances in which a person uses an alias to send and receive mail. Such communications are still protected under the Fourth Amendment.