The U.S. Supreme Court gave privacy rights advocates a significant victory on June 22, 2018. According to the 5-to-4 decision, in which Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Court’s four liberal Justices, the police are now required to obtain a warrant in order to obtain cell phone location information as part of an investigation.

The majority asserts Fourth Amendment protection reasons

The five Justices voting in the majority argued that a distinct expectation of privacy in accordance with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution forbids law enforcement’s tracking of a person’s cell phone location on a moment-by-moment basis. Such surveillance, according to the majority opinion, violates the Constitution without the introduction of a search warrant.

Roberts likened the type of tracking involved to the tracking that occurs with an ankle bracelet monitoring device. He asserted that law enforcement must first demonstrate to a judge there is probable cause of crime that allows this type of surveillance from the State.

Speaking for the majority, the Chief Justice said, “We decline to grant the state unrestricted access to a wireless carrier’s database of physical location information.”

However, Roberts noted that the prevailing opinion does not infringe upon other precedents that involve law enforcement’s access to office, banking, and other financial records.

In addition, the Court’s decision allows searches without a warrant for national security and emergency purposes, such as those involving cell tower location information and security camera searches.

Justice Anthony Kennedy led the dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, three of the courts conservative stalwarts. Each Justice in the minority filed a separate dissent.

In his opinion, Justice Kennedy warned that the Court’s ruling could put serious criminal investigations at risk “when law enforcement seeks to prevent the threat of violent crimes.”

Background: The robbery cases of 2010 and 2011

The narrowly decided case stems from a series of crimes committed in 2010 and 2011. The crimes, in fact, involved armed robberies designed to steal hundreds of new cell phones and make tens of thousands of dollars by selling them.

After law enforcement took some members of the gang committing these crimes into custody, individuals on the lower end of the crime ring ratted out the ringleader – Timothy Carpenter. Instead of obtaining a search warrant, police obtained a court order to access 127 days of mobile phone tracking records for Carpenter and other individuals in his group.

When reviewing the tracking information, law enforcement found that Carpenter’s general location information closely aligned with the locations of the robberies. That information was used to convict Carpenter. Subsequently, Carpenter appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that his Constitutional rights were violated because the police were first required to obtain a search warrant before obtaining the location information from the phone service provider.

When Carpenter made or received calls, his general location was detected by cell phone towers in the general vicinity, resulting in a one-half to 2 mile accuracy range for the location data. This data corresponded closely with the general location of the robberies.

The police obtained a court order for the search in accordance with the federal Stored Communications Act – an easier method than obtaining a search warrant. In order to obtain a search warrant, the police would have had to demonstrate probable cause to a judge that the phone records included evidence of a crime.

The court separates from third-party doctrine

When the Justices heard oral arguments in this case back in November 2017, they seemed uncertain about whether to put aside something referred to as third-party doctrine. This doctrine, developed decades previously, states that when a person shares information with a third-party, such as a phone company, all reasonable expectation of privacy concerning particular information is forfeited. Under this doctrine, the police are not required to obtain a search warrant to access the phone numbers of calls sent and received with the device.

However, as usual, technology is marching one step ahead of the law and its interpretation. The Justices have had to wrestle with how this piece of technology, a cell phone in a person’s pocket, can pinpoint the cell phone owner’s location day and night and how the individuals use of the device in terms of texting, calling, emailing reveals numerous seemingly private aspects of a person’s lifestyle and contacts.

In this narrowly defined case, it seems that privacy has won the day for now.

At Banks and Jones, we understand the debilitating impact a criminal charge such as robbery or any other offense can have upon you and your family. We are here as a strong advocate to fight on your behalf for your rights and as well as the reduction or elimination if possible of the charges and potential penalties you are facing. We Fight 2 Win on your behalf. To arrange a free consultation about your case, call our law office today at 865-546-2141, or complete our contact form.