Supreme Court Turns Down Opportunity To Straighten Out Cell Site Location Information Mess
from the Third-Party-Doctrine-still-mostly-intact dept
Appeals court rulings on the cell site location information are literally all over the place. (Also figuratively.)
What there isn't is any agreement on whether a warrant should be required to obtain this information. Some courts have come to the conclusion that this information -- broadcast by anyone with a cell phone, whether they realize it or not -- falls under the Third Party Doctrine. Others feel historical data is obtainable without warrants but real-time tracking requires additional paperwork.
The Third Party Doctrine is in play in the US v. Davis case. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reached the conclusion that there is no expectation of privacy in data collected by third parties (under the questionable assumption that cell site location info is given up "voluntarily" by cell phone users). The defendant, Quartavious Davis, appealed the appeals court's en banc decision.
Had the Supreme Court picked this up, we might have been looking at a final decision on warrants and cell site location data in the near future. The Supreme Court's Riley decision suggests there's an inherent expectation of privacy in the contents of a cell phone. It's not much of a stretch to believe the Supreme Court might find this expectation carries over to the massive amount of information generated by today's cell phones, despite the final storage location of the auto-generated location data.
Unfortunately, it could now be years before we see this resolved. The Supreme Court has decided to pass on Davis's appeal.
The nine justices turned away an appeal filed by a Florida man named Quartavious Davis, who was convicted of participating in a string of 2010 robberies in the Miami area and was sentenced to 1,941 months, almost 162 years, in prison without possibility of parole.The likelihood remains that the Supreme Court will have to address this issue in the near future. There are simply too many contradictory opinions among the appeals courts to leave this undecided for much longer. Cases challenging the warrantless seizure of cell location data have been plentiful. And the nation's courts seem more aware of law enforcement's manipulation of outdated statutes and court decisions to dodge warrant requirements.
Davis challenged his convictions in part on the grounds that police did not seek a warrant when they asked his cellphone provider, MetroPCS Communications Inc, for location information that linked him to the seven different crime scenes between August and October 2010.
As has been noted by the Supreme Court itself, the Fourth Amendment is purposefully designed to make law enforcement's job more difficult. It's a check against abuse, not an inconvenience to be routed around whenever possible.
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 site location info, quartavious davis, supreme court, warrant
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
more libertarians needed
Perhaps the biggest problem is with the current liberal/conservative binary. Conservatives (as we currently define them) tend to be pro-police state, while the liberals' focus on things like on gun bans and protecting women also tends to favor a heavier police response and suppression of individual rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: more libertarians needed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: more libertarians needed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Third Party Doctrine Doesnt Stand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Third Party Doctrine: the Law of the Land
And it's not just the Feds that enforce 'must-snitch' laws. Local governments require schools, hospitals, and mental health counselors to report suspects of "child abuse/neglect" - however loosely they might define it.
Government-mandated snitching is just another form of warrantless search, perpetrated by outsourcing the work of police (who need warrants) to 3rd parties (who don't need warrants).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: more libertarians needed
Legalized abortion favors heavier police responses?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: more libertarians needed
Politicians have been attempting to stack that deck at least as far back as FDR. This isn't a new thing.
Especially when all mainstream media perpetuates it so strongly. You always hear the binary liberal vs. conservative spin when reading stories reporting on the court's decisions. It's almost like the law is a bit player in the drama.
[ link to this | view in thread ]