Judge Rejects Gov't Request For Cell Tower Data, Noting Recent 4th Amendment Rulings
from the probable-cause dept
We recently wrote about a somewhat surprising ruling by the appeals court in the DC circuit saying that long-term use of a GPS to track someone without a warrant violated the 4th Amendment. What was surprising about this is that, while state courts had ruled similarly, the federal courts had almost universally ruled that such tracking was legal. While that case will almost certainly be appealed and seems to have a decent likelihood of ending up before the Supreme Court, it's apparently already impacting some rulings elsewhere. Chris Soghoian notes that a federal magistrate judge recently rejected the governments' request for historical cell site data from Sprint, because the government failed to show probable cause (as required under the 4th Amendment):The decision in Maynard is just one of several rulings in recent years reflecting a growing recognition, at least in some courts, that technology has progressed to the point where a person who wishes to partake in the social, cultural, and political affairs of our society has no realistic choice but to expose to others, if not to the public as a whole, a broad range of conduct and communications that would previously have been deemed unquestionably private....Nice to see some judges recognizing this, though it remains to be seen how many others will agree... and how the Supreme Court reacts to all of this.
As a result of such decisions, I believe that magistrate judges presented with ex parte requests for authority to deploy various forms of warrantless location-tracking must carefully re- examine the constitutionality of such investigative techniques, and that it is no longer enough to dismiss the need for such analysis by relying on cases such as Knotts or, as discussed below, Smith v. Maryland.... For the reasons discussed below, I now conclude that the Fourth Amendment prohibits as an unreasonable search and seizure the order the government now seeks in the absence of a showing of "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation[.]"
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 4th amendment, cell tower data, privacy, probable cause
Companies: sprint
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The fact is that BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW and by things such as stalking laws, cops following someone without a warrant is? Illegal and a CRIME in most places in the United States.
To give the cops 'carte blanche' like this is also to diminish the protections in the Constitution, which NO COURT OR LAWMAKING BODY (except federal Congress by an Amendment to the Constitution) are allowed to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know, this could mark the beginning of a new era. An era where judges don't automatically grant warrants upon request but one where they actually think about it first. Then again, I'm probably being short sighted here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't agree with all of Kerr's conclusions, but it's a great read if you're into Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]