The ramifications of the National Security Agency’s (NSA) telephony metadata scandal are starting to work their way through the legal system in cases not related to national security.

Earlier Wednesday, we reported on a California case where a defense attorney was not allowed to see a secret court opinion outlining why he couldn’t compel the government to produce a surveillance application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).

In a new 21-page legal filing (PDF) for a separate Florida-based federal criminal case, the government seemed to indicate that its routine collection of metadata by the National Security Agency does not include cell-site location information (CSLI). The dragnet of collected metadata referenced by the government was described in a recently leaked FISC order requiring Verizon to give up millions of such records daily. However, it’s certain that the government has the ability to acquire such location information for specific targets over specific periods of time.

In this particular criminal case, known as United States v. Daryl Davis, Hasam Williams et al., one of the suspects charged with armored car robbery has requested the government to produce CSLI for his phone on the night of the robbery. The suspect, Terrance Brown, argued in a filing earlier last week that while Metro PCS (his mobile provider) said it no longer had his location records from July 2010, the government likely acquired such records via the National Security Agency’s blanket handover order.

According to that earlier filing (PDF):

Defendant Brown urges that the records are important to his defense because cell-site records could be used to show that Brown was not in the vicinity of the attempted robbery that allegedly occurred in July 2010. And, relying on a June 5, 2013, Guardian newspaper article that published a FISA Court order relating to cellular telephone data collected by Verizon, Defendant Brown now suggests that the Government likely actually does possess the metadata relating to telephone calls made in July 2010 from the two numbers attributed to Defendant Brown.

On Wednesday, the government responded: “The information acquired under this program, however, did not include CSLI. Thus, the government does not posses the records the defendant seeks." But legal observers note that the government hasn’t exactly been forthright when it comes to what it does and doesn’t have—or exactly what its surveillance capabilities are.

“Without a definition or a sense of the scope of what ‘this program’ means, it’s hard to say with certainty how broad this denial is,” Kurt Opsahl, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Ars.

Both the United States Attorneys involved in the case and a spokesperson for the FBI did not immediately respond to our requests for comment.