Mouse over any sourced passage!
Click on any sourced passage!
Click on any sourced passage
The United States Government, in a case decided by the Supreme Court in 2018, argued that law enforcement should be able to access an individual’s cellphone location data without a warrant.
The government's argument wasn’t without precedent. In a 1976 case, the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement doesn't need a warrant in order to access bank records. The court decided that "the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party.”
This idea that information customers voluntarily provide to a third party is outside the bounds of Fourth Amendment protections is sometimes referred to as the “third-party doctrine.” In 1979 the Supreme court went further with this idea and ruled that an individual “can claim no legitimate expectation of privacy” when it comes to his phone company sharing which phone numbers he dialled with the police.
So what happened when the government argued that this doctrine applies to cellphone location data?
The case in question involved Timothy Carpenter. According to the ruling, law enforcement was able to show that Carpenter's phone was near the location of four robberies while they were occurring by obtaining more than 100 days' worth of his smartphone location data records from Metro PCS and Sprint, all without a warrant. The government argued that the third-party doctrine governed this case, “because cell-site records… are ‘business records,’ created and maintained by wireless carriers.”
In this case the court ruled against the government, holding that police would “generally” need a search warrant to obtain a person’s historical cell phone location data from their cellular service provider.
“The question we confront today is how to apply the Fourth Amendment to a new phenomenon: the ability to chronicle a person’s past movements through the record of his cell phone signals,” Justice John Roberts wrote in the ruling.
“We decline to grant the state unrestricted access to a wireless carrier’s database of physical location information… In light of the deeply revealing nature of [cell site location information], its depth, breadth, and comprehensive reach, and the inescapable and automatic nature of its collection, the fact that such information is gathered by a third party does not make it any less deserving of Fourth Amendment protection.”
The ruling was decided by a narrow 5-4 majority.
Support SourcedPress on Patreon
In one of the dissents, Justice Kennedy declared his opinion that “Cell-site records, however, are no different from the many other kinds of business records the Government has a lawful right to obtain by compulsory process,” calling the distinction between [cell site location information] and other records like financial or telephone records made by the court “illogical.”
The decision wasn’t without exceptions. The court set an exception when “law enforcement is confronted with an urgent situation”. It also left access to data covering "less than seven days" undecided — the majority of justices held that they did not need to adjudicate at this point whether such a request would be a Fourth Amendment search and hence require a warrant.
The court also noted that the ruling was intended to be narrow in scope, writing that the court does not "call into question conventional surveillance techniques and tools, such as security cameras. Nor do we address other business records that might incidentally reveal location information. Further, our opinion does not consider other collection techniques involving foreign affairs or national security."
The United States Government, in a case decided by the Supreme Court in 2018, argued that law enforcement should be able to access an individual’s cellphone location data without a warrant.
The government's argument wasn’t without precedent. In a 1976 case, the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement doesn't need a warrant in order to access bank records. The court decided that "the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party.”
This idea that information customers voluntarily provide to a third party is outside the bounds of Fourth Amendment protections is sometimes referred to as the “third-party doctrine.” In 1979 the Supreme court went further with this idea and ruled that an individual “can claim no legitimate expectation of privacy” when it comes to his phone company sharing which phone numbers he dialled with the police.
So what happened when the government argued that this doctrine applies to cellphone location data?
The case in question involved Timothy Carpenter. According to the ruling, law enforcement was able to show that Carpenter's phone was near the location of four robberies while they were occurring by obtaining more than 100 days' worth of his smartphone location data records from Metro PCS and Sprint, all without a warrant. The government argued that the third-party doctrine governed this case, “because cell-site records… are ‘business records,’ created and maintained by wireless carriers.”
In this case the court ruled against the government, holding that police would “generally” need a search warrant to obtain a person’s historical cell phone location data from their cellular service provider.
“The question we confront today is how to apply the Fourth Amendment to a new phenomenon: the ability to chronicle a person’s past movements through the record of his cell phone signals,” Justice John Roberts wrote in the ruling.
“We decline to grant the state unrestricted access to a wireless carrier’s database of physical location information… In light of the deeply revealing nature of [cell site location information], its depth, breadth, and comprehensive reach, and the inescapable and automatic nature of its collection, the fact that such information is gathered by a third party does not make it any less deserving of Fourth Amendment protection.”
The ruling was decided by a narrow 5-4 majority.
Support SourcedPress on Patreon
In one of the dissents, Justice Kennedy declared his opinion that “Cell-site records, however, are no different from the many other kinds of business records the Government has a lawful right to obtain by compulsory process,” calling the distinction between [cell site location information] and other records like financial or telephone records made by the court “illogical.”
The decision wasn’t without exceptions. The court set an exception when “law enforcement is confronted with an urgent situation”. It also left access to data covering "less than seven days" undecided — the majority of justices held that they did not need to adjudicate at this point whether such a request would be a Fourth Amendment search and hence require a warrant.
The court also noted that the ruling was intended to be narrow in scope, writing that the court does not "call into question conventional surveillance techniques and tools, such as security cameras. Nor do we address other business records that might incidentally reveal location information. Further, our opinion does not consider other collection techniques involving foreign affairs or national security."