Court Says Warrantless Mobile Phone Tracking Is Unconstitutional

from the well-that-could-make-things-interesting dept

Mon, Nov 21st 2011 4:49am — Mike Masnick

In an amazingly short and to the point ruling (embedded below), a judge in a district court in Southern Texas, Lynn Hughes, ruled that letting the government get mobile phone data without a warrant was unconstitutional:

When the government requests records from cellular services, data disclosing the location of the telephone at the time of particular calls may be acquired only by a warrant issued on probable cause. U.S. Const., amend. 4. The records show the date, time, called number, and location of the telephone when the call was made. These data are constitutionally protected from this intrusion. The standard under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d), is below that required by the Constitution.

Of course, there are a number of cases out there that have ruled on similar issues... and come to different conclusions. This is one of those issues that will continue to bounce around until the Supreme Court clarifies. Still, there's something nice about seeing a court ruling of this nature, where the judge doesn't waste any time at all, and basically just says, "Hey, 4th Amendment! Next!"

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, privacy, texas, tracking

20 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

The Devil's Coachman (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 5:11am

Like law enforcement will pay any attention to this?
Not too likely, and they are always forgiven for their transgressions anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DCX2, 21 Nov 2011 @ 8:44am
  
  Re: Like law enforcement will pay any attention to this?
  I know, right?
  
  CIA violates a court order by destroying tapes that a judge had requested from them. Instead of "obstruction of justice" or "destroying evidence", the CIA merely committed "transgressions" for which punishment "would serve no beneficial purpose", according to one U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein of New York.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 6:16am

It continues to amaze me that law enforcement agents are unwilling to get warrants. They aren't particularly hard to get, and yet the small extra effort plus slightly higher standard (i.e., probably cause) is too much to ask for, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 6:37am
  
  Re:
  Dear everyone:
  
  I know it shouldn't be that big a deal, but it's "probable" cause. Probably cause sounds like the beginning of a statement explaining why I shaved a mohawk into my dogs over the weekend:
  
  "Well, honey, probably cause I was drunk, so how do ya like that?"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - xenomancer (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 6:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    I like "probably cause" better. It sounds more realistic probably cause the police probably cause a lot of "probable cause." And it allows me to gratuitously over use probably and probable.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 6:44am
  
  Re:
  What are constitutional rights when we have a number of people trained to get the bad guy at any cost?
  
  Then we ignore the fact that the bad guy could be the one they see in the mirror.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - unecessaryEvil, 21 Nov 2011 @ 12:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    By implying that you have 'constitutional rights', you're saying that the government gives you rights. Which is simply not true and wrong, you have individual rights -- a big difference. The constitution is suppose to protect those rights. Even still, if the Constitution were to disappear tomorrow, it would not change anything -- you still have a right to life, liberty & property etc..
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 6:18am

Freetard judge... pirating your cellphones.

Also, inb4 tinfoil hat post by blue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Louis Smith (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 6:18am

It is a real shame...
... when a judge getting it right is major news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cc (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 6:27am

"This is one of those issues that will continue to bounce around until the Supreme Court clarifies that warrantless tracking is perfectly legal."

FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Prisoner 201, 21 Nov 2011 @ 7:49am
  
  Re:
  "This is one of those issues that will continue to bounce around until the Supreme Court clarifies that anything the government wants to do is perfectly legal."
  
  I see your FTFY and raise you one FTFY.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 4:59pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No no no, the government has to yell "TERRORISM!" really loudly first. It's only perfectly legal after that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Guy (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 6:37am

"This is one of those issues that will continue to bounce around until the Supreme Court clarifies. "

Depending on how broadly or narrowly the SCOTUS rules on the warrantless GPS case, maybe it will be decided soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 7:17am

This only applies to the lowest levels of law enforcement, if that. The feds will still get the info they want as well as anyone who has a "friend" on the inside.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
P3T3R5ON, 21 Nov 2011 @ 7:18am

Here is my question, at what point do they use cellular location data in a case? To line up who was where when, during an investigation?

Cause I could hand my phone to some random kid and give him 50$ with instructions to go hang out at the mall and return the phone in 2hrs after I've commited a crime.

Then the opposite happens... can I use my own cellular location records to provide an alabi? Cause if they are going to use it as evidence, you should be able to counter and use it against them. Or throw it out because cellphones aren't imbeded in our bodies yet.

I just think it shouldn't be used in court cases without iron clad proof one way or the other, there are to many variables...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pixelation, 21 Nov 2011 @ 7:48am

In other news
In other news, a judge goes missing after a bunch of dark vehicles show up at her house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Devil's Coachman (profile), 21 Nov 2011 @ 8:58am
  
  Re: In other news
  Don't be surprised when that happens. Notice I did not say if.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 9:16am

Now if only they made it unconstitutional for wireless providers to invade your privacy.

http://www.xda-developers.com/android/the-rootkit-of-all-evil-ciq/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aleina, 21 Nov 2011 @ 7:37pm

Just a single court ruling in a single district. SCOTUS will allow warrantless phone tracking and then it's a done deal.
http://goo.gl/L89ss
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ryan Griffith, 7 May 2014 @ 6:36am

Mobile Phone Tracking
Mobile Phone Tracking is illegal and should be banned. Not only the phone tracking but also the facebook tracking is illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]