Irrelevant and untrue. If they record the landline number you called from, it's pretty obvious where you were, in fact (after confirming you made the phone call) it pinpoints your location with more accuracy than cell tower info.
The point is, as was said in the ruling I quoted, the number dialed is information record for legitimate business purposes and with no expectation of privacy, same cell tower records.

A law was passed saying that law enforcement had to obtain a subpoena (still not a warrant), this means it is illegal for law enforcement to use a pen register without a subpoena, it does not make it unconstitutional. The topic hear is constitutionality. It's illegal to drive thirty in a twenty five zone, it is not unconstitutional. See the difference? Now, if you want to petition congress to pass a law saying the police must have a court order to obtain cell tower records, I'll be happy to call my reps and encourage them to sign it, but that still wont make it unconstitutional.

I'm not assuming anything, I'm stating that information voluntarily give to a third party (aside from lawyer, priest, etc.) does not fall under any reasonable expectation of privacy and does not classify as a "search and seizure" as described under the 4th amendment. A statement is affirmed by several court rulings.

The SCOTUS doesn't (at least it's not suppose to) decide cases based on "a message sent by the people", it decides them based on their constitutionality. Again, pass a law requiring a court order, I'd support it.

Nope, still falls under third party doctrine as established in Smith v Maryland. For whatever reason, you want to harp on the type of information turned over to the third party, but it's irrelevant.

The pen register doesn't "pinpoint" any location.
The telephone company knowing where a specific phone number is routed to is completely independent of the pen register's functionality.

Show anywhere in the explanation of the pen register operation where it records the location.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_register#Definitions


And yet again you just tried to equate the privacy expectations on two separate pieces of information.
* number dialed, and
* physical location of the cell caller.

They are NOT equivalent.


Again, that law demonstrates an expectation of privacy established by the American people.
Before, the court could proclaim that information does not have any expectation of privacy.
The fact that the American people have instituted a law to help protect that information demonstrates an expectation of privacy.



You just stated it above, again.
So don't pretend that you aren't trying to assume that a dialed number's privacy is equivalent to a cell caller's location's privacy.


We've already covered the "third party" problem.
The government is restricted by the constitution.

A landlord may have permission to enter a rented tenant's location. He may bring in a plumber or electrician.
But the landlord cannot grant permission for the police to enter the rented tenant's location.

The third party is irrelevant.


"a message sent by the people" is about "expectation of privacy".
The courts look at such laws passed to help understand the people's expressed "expectations of privacy".


Because the two pieces of information do not have the same level of expectations of privacy.

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln