US Supreme Court Protects Cell Phone Location Information
June 24, 2018 - Posted by Larry E. Holtz, Esq.
Does an individual have a constitutional right of privacy in his or her cell-phone location information? Recently, in Carpenter v. United States (US 6-22-18), the United States Supreme Court said yes!
THE CASE: The police arrested four men suspected of robbing a series of Radio Shack and (ironically enough) T-Mobile stores in Detroit. One of the men confessed that, over the previous four months, the group had robbed nine different stores in Michigan and Ohio. The suspect identified various accomplices who had participated in the heists, including defendant Timothy Carpenter, and gave the FBI their cell phone numbers. Based on that information, the prosecutors applied for court orders to obtain cell phone records for Carpenter and several others. The court orders directed Carpenter’s wireless carriers—MetroPCS and Sprint—to disclose cell-site records revealing the location of Carpenter’s cell phone whenever it made or received calls. In all, the Government was able to obtain cell-site location information (CSLI) documenting 12,898 location points that cataloged Carpenter’s movements over 127 days—an average of 101 data points per day. This was the time frame when the string of robberies occurred.
The question before the Court was how to apply the Fourth Amendment to the personal location information maintained by a third party (Carpenter’s wireless carriers Sprint and MetroPCS) and law enforcement’s “ability to chronicle a person’s past movements through the record of his cell phone signals.” Much like GPS tracking of a vehicle, CSLI “is detailed, encyclopedic, and effortlessly compiled.” In fact, “when the Government tracks the location of a cell phone it achieves near perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user.”
THE LAW: In the court below, the Sixth Circuit found that Carpenter lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location information collected by the FBI because he had shared that information with his wireless carriers. The United States Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the Government’s acquisition of cell-site records revealing the location of Carpenter’s cell phone whenever it made or received calls was a Fourth Amendment search. Said the Court:
Given the unique nature of cellphone location records, the fact that the information is held by a third party does not by itself overcome the user’s claim to Fourth Amendment protection. Whether the Government employs its own surveillance technology . . . or leverages the technology of a wireless carrier, we hold that an individual maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements as captured through CSLI. The location information obtained from Carpenter’s wireless carriers was the product of a search[, and] the Government must generally obtain a warrant supported by probable cause before acquiring such records.
Emergency circumstances. Even though the Government will generally need a warrant to access cell-site location information, case-specific exceptions may support a warrantless search of an individual’s cell-site records under certain circumstances. “One well-recognized exception applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment[.] Such exigencies include the need to pursue a fleeing suspect, protect individuals who are threatened with imminent harm, or prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.” As a result, “if law enforcement is confronted with an urgent situation, such fact-specific threats will likely justify the warrantless collection of CSLI. Lower courts, for instance, have approved warrantless searches related to bomb threats, active shootings, and child abductions,” and this case does not call into doubt warrantless access to CSLI in such circumstances.
Does an individual have a constitutional right of privacy in his or her cell-phone location information? Recently, in Carpenter v. United States (US 6-22-18), the United States Supreme Court said yes!
THE CASE: The police arrested four men suspected of robbing a series of Radio Shack and (ironically enough) T-Mobile stores in Detroit. One of the men confessed that, over the previous four months, the group had robbed nine different stores in Michigan and Ohio. The suspect identified various accomplices who had participated in the heists, including defendant Timothy Carpenter, and gave the FBI their cell phone numbers. Based on that information, the prosecutors applied for court orders to obtain cell phone records for Carpenter and several others. The court orders directed Carpenter’s wireless carriers—MetroPCS and Sprint—to disclose cell-site records revealing the location of Carpenter’s cell phone whenever it made or received calls. In all, the Government was able to obtain cell-site location information (CSLI) documenting 12,898 location points that cataloged Carpenter’s movements over 127 days—an average of 101 data points per day. This was the time frame when the string of robberies occurred.
The question before the Court was how to apply the Fourth Amendment to the personal location information maintained by a third party (Carpenter’s wireless carriers Sprint and MetroPCS) and law enforcement’s “ability to chronicle a person’s past movements through the record of his cell phone signals.” Much like GPS tracking of a vehicle, CSLI “is detailed, encyclopedic, and effortlessly compiled.” In fact, “when the Government tracks the location of a cell phone it achieves near perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user.”
THE LAW: In the court below, the Sixth Circuit found that Carpenter lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location information collected by the FBI because he had shared that information with his wireless carriers. The United States Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the Government’s acquisition of cell-site records revealing the location of Carpenter’s cell phone whenever it made or received calls was a Fourth Amendment search. Said the Court:
Given the unique nature of cellphone location records, the fact that the information is held by a third party does not by itself overcome the user’s claim to Fourth Amendment protection. Whether the Government employs its own surveillance technology . . . or leverages the technology of a wireless carrier, we hold that an individual maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements as captured through CSLI. The location information obtained from Carpenter’s wireless carriers was the product of a search[, and] the Government must generally obtain a warrant supported by probable cause before acquiring such records.
Emergency circumstances. Even though the Government will generally need a warrant to access cell-site location information, case-specific exceptions may support a warrantless search of an individual’s cell-site records under certain circumstances. “One well-recognized exception applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment[.] Such exigencies include the need to pursue a fleeing suspect, protect individuals who are threatened with imminent harm, or prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.” As a result, “if law enforcement is confronted with an urgent situation, such fact-specific threats will likely justify the warrantless collection of CSLI. Lower courts, for instance, have approved warrantless searches related to bomb threats, active shootings, and child abductions,” and this case does not call into doubt warrantless access to CSLI in such circumstances.