Prosecutors Argue Cell Site Location Data Is Something Every User Shares With 'The Rest Of The World'
from the no-expectation-of-privacy-in-things-we-insist-everyone-knows dept
The state of Maryland's defense of the Baltimore PD's warrantless use of Stingray devices continues, taking the form of a series of motions unofficially titled Things People Should Know About Their Cell Phones.
The last brief it filed in this criminal prosecution claimed "everyone knows" phones generate location data, therefore there's no expectation of privacy in this information. As commenters pointed out, people may know lots of stuff about records they're generating, but that doesn't mean law enforcement should have warrantless access to those records.
Everyone Knows… That my Doctors generate medical data about patients, so how about we get their medical records on public display without warrants!With no expectation of privacy, there's no need for a warrant. And with no warrant requirement, there's no chance of having evidence tossed. That's a win Maryland needs, considering the Baltimore PD alone has deployed IMSI catchers several thousand times without obtaining warrants. Everything runs through pen register orders, which both lower the burden of proof and (in many cases) obscure the technology actually being used.
Now, it's back with its response to the defendant's motion to dismiss and it's again claiming People Know Stuff, therefore no expectation of privacy. (h/t Brad Heath)
After dismissing the defendant's arguments about police use of location tracking devices as "dystopian fantasies," the state argues it's time for the accused (not just this one, but any others facing prosecutions predicated on warrantless cell phone tracking device usage) to stop pretending they don't know how much data their phones are coughing up.
While cell phones are ubiquitous, they all come with "off" switches. If a cell phone is turned on, it is receiving signals from cell towers, and sending signals back out to cell towers. The cell site simulator used in this case took advantage of that fact in order to locate Andrews's phone. Because Andrews chose to keep his cell phone on, he was voluntarily sharing the location of his cell phone with third parties. Under the doctrine set forth by the Supreme Court in Smith, supra, he cannot claim a Fourth Amendment privacy right in this case.The "Smith" the state refers to is 1979's Smith v. Maryland, which law enforcement loves to use in cell phone surveillance cases, because:
a) it's incredibly outdated, and
b) it provides a very broad and favorable reading of the Third Party Doctrine as it relates to phone usage.
The state says it's the defendant's own fault he was located. After all, he had a choice. And he chose badly.
Andrews complains that the police "invaded" a "constitutionally protected area," and therefore this search triggered Fourth Amendment protections under United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) and Kyllo v. United States, 533 US. 27 (2001). But in Karo, the suspect was unaware that he had brought a police transponder into his home, and in Kyllo, the suspect was unable to prevent grow-lights (or his body) from emitting heat. Andrews, by contrast, was quite aware that he was bringing his own cell phone into the house. And he was quite capable of turning it offThe government's argument, while technically solid when used in conjunction with these precedent-setting decisions (Smith's outdated view of phones notwithstanding), but it becomes completely disingenuous when it describes the "sharing" of identifying phone data.
Just as the telephone company in Smith used transmitted phone numbers in a way quite distinct from the way in which the police used them, so, too, Andrews's cell service provider used the ID number broadcast by his cell phone in ways quite distinct from the way in which the police used it. The way in which the information was used does not alter the "expectation of privacy" in the information itself. Smith controls here. Andrews's addition of the adjective "exact" to the noun "location" does not alter that fact. The issue is not whether Andrews was aware that the police could find the location of his cell phone to within 20 yards. The issue is whether Andrews can claim an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in information which he was voluntarily broadcasting to third parties at all times. Under Smith, the answer is no.The "rest of the world?" Really? Andrews may have been able to talk his cell phone provider into turning over a copy of all the data his phone had generated, but it's not as though the general public has access to this information, expectation of privacy or no. Just because law enforcement can access this information with warrants or (more likely) pen register orders does not make it information "shared" with "the rest of the world." It is not shared indiscriminately and it's only because cell providers are legally compelled to cooperate with law enforcement (CALEA, etc.) that cops can obtain this information with a pen register order, rather than a warrant.
There is no Fourth Amendment right to evade a valid arrest warrant. Andrews was wanted on multiple counts of attempted murder. A life "on the lam" may require some inconveniences, such as not staying in one's home, and turning one's cell phone off when not in use. There is no constitutional right to avoid being arrested for one's crimes, and nothing unreasonable about the police using the same information that Andrews was sharing with the rest of the world to apprehend him.
And, in this case, the information was not obtained with a court order. There may be a court order on record that would give the impression the BPD would approach a telco for phone records, but the actual collection of Andrews' location info was done with a Hailstorm cell tower spoofer. The state claims the request specified the use of a cell tower spoofer but there's no indication the presiding judge had any idea how much information these devices can obtain. A pen register order refers to a targeted phone number. A cell tower simulator gathers information from everyone in the area.
This isn't just a fight over this particular prosecution. This is the state safeguarding its thousands of Stingray deployments. If it's going to be able to keep those prosecutions from falling apart -- now that the BPD's devices are an open secret -- it needs the court to agree there's no expectation of privacy in cell phone location data. And in order to do that, it apparently needs the court to believe everyone using a cell phone is sharing all sorts of information with "the rest of the world."
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, baltimore, expectation of privacy, location, location data, maryland, privacy, third party doctrine
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Two way street
Yeah, right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Human bodies choose to emit heat
It's like people don't understand physics!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Once arrested you have no rights, which is essentially true.
You can be stripe searched, you can be fondled, you can be beaten, you can be locked up and forgotten about.
Your trial will additionally be lengthy delayed. You can be arrested for ANY REASON.
You only have the rights they allow you to keep. If you don't like it you can always challenge them as the rest of us worthless citizens look on and do nothing about your plight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You touch my stripe, you WILL be beaten up. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I beg your pardon, but that's nowhere near true. You have a right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers. A fair trial includes evidence against you lawfully obtained, if necessary with a warrant signed by an (ostensibly) impartial judge. You have a right to privacy in your person and effects until a judge is convinced by the authorities of probable cause that the authorities are then allowed to invade said privacy.
I'm very much in favor of punishing convicted murderers, but come on cops! Put your back into it, ffs! You've put away (railroaded) far too many innocents over the years for us to just trust you any more. Stop cutting corners and being lazy! Do your jobs as we expect them to be done.
With probable cause, any judge will be happy to sign that warrant, so why's it such a burden for you to get them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Answered your own question
'With probable cause' imposes limits, it creates a paper-trail and requires them to present evidence to a judge sufficient to get a warrant. And if all they've got is a hunch, or just a burning desire to violate the privacy of a couple dozen/hundred people just in case they can find something incriminating, all without any evidence of their actions in third-party hands, then getting a warrant becomes a bit of a bother.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It really upsets me that if they get this pig to fly, it'll be open season on all of us and we'll be powerless to defend ourselves from their mistaken assumptions. Innocent until proven guilty is such an archaic concept, yes? Who needs that mouldy old thing other than obviously guilty criminals in this day and age?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My thought....
Boys and their toys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My thought....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then... can I have it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you're a LEO and can show probable cause, sure. If not, we'd like to speak to you and understand what you're doing trying to invade the privacy of your fellow citizens, which you've no right to do. You can start by showing us some identification; driver's license, passport, ... Understand anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law and lying to an officer of the peace is a felony punishable by fines and/or imprisonment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK, quick, anyone here, what's my cell site location?
You don't know it?
But I thought I was sharing it with everybody?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shared with who ...
The police inserted their equipment in place of the cell tower. That goes beyond simply tapping a phone line which does require a warrant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shared with who ...
You'd think they'd know if they went before a judge and told them they were hunting for a murderer, s/he'd be overjoyed to sign that warrant.
So, ... I just don't get it. WTF is their problem with "get a warrant"? Do they just hate explaining themselves to anyone including judges? Well, hire some doofus lawyer to handle that for them. S/He talks to the judge and gets the warrant and you get it from him/her and bust the bastard. Smiple [sic]. C'mon guys!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So how much does a cell simulator device cost?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So how much does a cell simulator device cost?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So how much does a cell simulator device cost?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So how much does a cell simulator device cost?
Meaning, the mfgr won't/can't sell you one. Even when the cops get one, they have to sign NDAs to hide the precious details from the courts, and if the judge balks, you throw out the case.
Which just stinks of suspicious !@#$ goin' on. Meaning, they're well aware this is all screwing with the Constitution.
Yet they can avoid all of this mess by being upfront with the judge and getting a warrant, so ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean don't you have a stingray just lying around your home? I thought everyone had one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I imagine career criminals, murderers, dope dealers, kiddie-fiddlers & etc. would love to have that sort of thing at all times.
I'm none of the above. I couldn't care less where the cops and prosecutor are until I need them. Why're they so frigging defensive about people like me that they need to stick their noses between me and my ISP without a warrant and without showing probable cause?
Are you aware that since this !@#$ started to get leaked, people now have access to apps they can run that tell them whether their box has been invaded by a Stingray? Where's that getting you? The LEOs made it easier for bad guys to hide by pulling this !@#$.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not all phones have "off" switches...
If I turn off "locations" services on my phone, ie - E911 only, I certainly expect my location to be private.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illegal on any level
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great!
Great! Then I want to be able to decode this information.
Do show the location for this API so any old GNU Radio kind of project can pick it up.
Oh, and do show me where it is LEGAL for me to have and decode this knowledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm leaning towards " fuck 'em both ".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The same goes for cell site location data or "meta-data". Just because a user knows that location data is generated doesn't mean that anyone in law enforcement can collect that information without a search warrant. Law enforcement is held to a higher standard than the general public and they simply cannot go around seizing data or evidence just because they can.
It's why courts routinely throw out evidence with the issuance of a valid search warrant. They have rules they must follow before it can be used as evidence in a trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"It's why courts routinely throw out evidence with the issuance of a valid search warrant. They have rules they must follow before it can be used as evidence in a trial."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
About that data...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-british-want-to-come-to-america--with- wiretap-orders-and-search-warrants/2016/02/04/b351ce9e-ca86-11e5-a7b2-5a2f824b02c9_story.html
The UK is a prime country of civil rights. They might have just ignored a UN ruling but who cares? As long as they say that UN rulings have to be followed by Iran we don't care if they ignore rulings that involve the UK. After all the US never even agreed to that court and it's rulings.
So sure the Uk can spy on all US citizens because after all the US citizens have nothing to hide and don't mind if some Brit looks at their Nude girlfriend or his dickpic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: About that data...
*pretty sure there is some Sarah in Oklahoma. I don't have access to those pictures which in fact do exsist. Name Sarah was used because that's the name of my latest ex. No individual was targeted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Prosecutors Argue"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Likewise, cell phones don't work without the telcom. But the telcom is not required to share my info with the rest of the world either. It takes a warrant to obtain that info legally by LEO. These laws were in effect long before cell phones came on the scene. Just because it's a bit of an inconvenience to do things legally doesn't mean you have the right as LEO to just up and break in someone's home without a warrant. LEO has no right to look in someone's home for evidence with out proper procedure of a search warrant. The right to privacy may be inconvenient to LEOs but it is the law.
Breaking the law to enforce the law is what is the problem here and no amount of 'we should be able to' gets you around that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where to start?
The only data I "voluntarily" share with the phone company is the number of the person I want to call. I am aware that there is more data sent from my phone, but I was never given a choice about that, so the term "voluntary" doesn't apply. Even so, why should I **not** have an expectation that the phone company will respect my privacy?
Phone meta-data is not "shared with the world" ... I'd have a difficult time even getting my OWN from the phone company (other than call info), let alone anyone elses. So much for "sharing with the world"!
Next, we have "who do I (in)voluntarily share data with?" Easy - the phone company, via their towers. At no point do I agree to connect to any other transceiver (such as a Stingray). Those are not cell towers, and there is absolutely NO agreement to connect to them.
Even the "pen register" stuff - I have less issue with pen-register searches if they were done as originally intended. They only returned data on when and what number was called - absolutely NOTHING else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who keeps hiring these idiots?!?
Everyone knows other people have sex. So, should we expect privacy in our bedrooms? We all also spend time alone in bathrooms, showering, crapping, ...
How can anyone be taken at all seriously after spouting garbage like this? Why's this person still have a job? They should be in an institution if this is the best they can come up with. Society has a moral obligation to protect people like this from harming themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who keeps hiring these idiots?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who keeps hiring these idiots?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, wait wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gangs & Thugs With Guns
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USually agree with Techdirt, but maybe not here
If I'm shouting loud enough for people to hear me outside my house and off of my property, I have no legal or moral standing to prevent them from passively hearing or actively listening to me.
Likewise, if I'm swinging a flashlight around, I cannot forbid people from receiving the light and using it to pinpoint my location, that's just ridiculous.
In addition, if I'm walking around broadcasting a radio signal, I should not be able to prevent people from determining the broadcast location. Its the same as shouting, or flashing a light.
Searching my communications is obviously a breach of privacy, but simply determining my location based on me shouting, spinning flashlights around, or broadcasting radio, should be morally and legally okay. You're publicly announcing your presence! and telling people not to listen!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cell site simulators advancing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]