Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > The Constitution & The Judicial Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The Constitution & The Judicial Branch Discuss Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data at the Political Forums; Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data A Fourth Amendment case out of the ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 06-07-2017, 09:51 AM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,036
Thanks: 9,510
Thanked 14,508 Times in 8,756 Posts
Post Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data

Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants
for cell phone location data

Quote:
A Fourth Amendment case out of the Detroit area, related to whether police must obtain warrants before acquiring cell phone location data from providers, is headed to the Supreme Court.

The case involves convicted serial robber Timothy I. Carpenter, 32, who is serving a 100-year-plus sentence after being convicted of 11 crimes related to robberies that occurred between 2010 and 2015.


During his trial, Carpenter's attorneys argued that cell phone location data shouldn't have been allowed at trial because they were obtained from cell phone providers without a warrant.

The appeal was denied by the Sixth Circuit Court and the Supreme Court announced it would hear the case on Monday, June 5.

Police currently need warrants to review data, such as emails, text messages, photos and videos, that is contained on the phone of someone placed under arrest.

Chief Justice John Roberts said in an opinion three years ago phones are "based on technology nearly inconceivable just a few decades ago" and "are now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy,'" According to the Supreme Court blog. Justices said information on a phone isn't excluded from search, but "a warrant is generally required before such a search."

Carpenter's attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union argue cell phone location data reveals a lot about a person.

"A person who knows all of another's travels can deduce whether he is a weekly church goer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym, an unfaithful husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment, an associate of particular individuals or political groups -- and not just one such fact about a person, but all such facts," the appeal says.

the FBI allegedly obtained more than four months of location data for Carpenter's phone, which linked him to multiple robberies. Carpenter's attorneys reference another precedent, U.S. v. Jones, in which it was determined police use of a GPS tracking device placed on suspects car constituted a "search" and there fore required a search warrant.

"If tracking a vehicle for 28 days in Jones was a search, then surely tracking a cell phone for four times as long is likewise a search, particularly because people keep their phones with them as they enter private spaces traditionally protected by the Fourth Amendment," the appeal says.
Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data | MLive.com

Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
About time!
I hope they get this right. Without your knowledge, turning a device you carry into a tracking device without a warrant is profoundly messed up.
Sounds like they already have the precedent in place to reach the obvious conclusion...
__________________
“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
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 06-07-2017, 03:16 PM
lurch907's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alaska, the greatest place on earth.
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,143
Thanks: 975
Thanked 2,475 Times in 1,470 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data

This should be interesting. There is a vital piece of info we don't have and that is: Did the provider willing give the data to law enforcement?
This is important because (if memory serves) location data, tower usage, roaming time, and a host of other data is owned by the service provider and that is something you agree to when you sign the contract. This is where the precedence in U.S. v Jones may fall apart. Jones prevailed because the car was his private property and the court ruled (badly in my opinion) that the FBI needed a warrant to place something on his car. In Carpenters case I don't believe he owns the data and the provider was free to give that info to law enforcement. Now, if the police obtained the data without the owners permission it's a whole different ball game.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 06-07-2017, 03:44 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 71,067
Thanks: 51,895
Thanked 24,647 Times in 17,425 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants
for cell phone location data


Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data | MLive.com

Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
About time!
I hope they get this right. Without your knowledge, turning a device you carry into a tracking device without a warrant is profoundly messed up.
Sounds like they already have the precedent in place to reach the obvious conclusion...
well hell yeah they need a warrant. but depends on political winds with this SCOTUS
unfortunately
__________________
I'm the Ernest Hemingway of 140 characters. Donald Trump
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 06-07-2017, 03:49 PM
lurch907's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alaska, the greatest place on earth.
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,143
Thanks: 975
Thanked 2,475 Times in 1,470 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
well hell yeah they need a warrant. but depends on political winds with this SCOTUS
unfortunately
Why do you think they need a warrant? Do you know if the service provider willingly gave up the data?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 06-07-2017, 08:04 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,036
Thanks: 9,510
Thanked 14,508 Times in 8,756 Posts
Post Re: Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data

Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907 View Post
This should be interesting. There is a vital piece of info we don't have and that is: Did the provider willing give the data to law enforcement?
This is important because (if memory serves) location data, tower usage, roaming time, and a host of other data is owned by the service provider and that is something you agree to when you sign the contract. This is where the precedence in U.S. v Jones may fall apart. Jones prevailed because the car was his private property and the court ruled (badly in my opinion) that the FBI needed a warrant to place something on his car. In Carpenters case I don't believe he owns the data and the provider was free to give that info to law enforcement. Now, if the police obtained the data without the owners permission it's a whole different ball game.
There is a huge difference inbetween a private person / organization tracking a person, as compared to the federal government tracking a person.

A landlord can enter a tenant's apartment. Laws vary regarding notice.
No amount of police saying "we want to enter your apartment" justifies them entering against the tenant's will. The landlord cannot provide that "permission".

As mentioned in the article, there is precedent in a tracking device placed on a car. Similarly, it wouldn't be illegal for somebody to slap a tracking device on somebody else's car. It is illegal for the government to do so.
__________________
“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
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 06-07-2017, 08:19 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 71,067
Thanks: 51,895
Thanked 24,647 Times in 17,425 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data

Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907 View Post
Why do you think they need a warrant? Do you know if the service provider willingly gave up the data?
doesnt matter, I didnt give my permission.
__________________
I'm the Ernest Hemingway of 140 characters. Donald Trump
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to saltwn For This Useful Post:
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-2017, 07:29 AM
lurch907's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alaska, the greatest place on earth.
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,143
Thanks: 975
Thanked 2,475 Times in 1,470 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
doesnt matter, I didnt give my permission.
Except that is exactly what you did when you signed the contract with the service provider.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-2017, 07:39 AM
lurch907's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alaska, the greatest place on earth.
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,143
Thanks: 975
Thanked 2,475 Times in 1,470 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
There is a huge difference inbetween a private person / organization tracking a person, as compared to the federal government tracking a person.

A landlord can enter a tenant's apartment. Laws vary regarding notice.
No amount of police saying "we want to enter your apartment" justifies them entering against the tenant's will. The landlord cannot provide that "permission".

As mentioned in the article, there is precedent in a tracking device placed on a car. Similarly, it wouldn't be illegal for somebody to slap a tracking device on somebody else's car. It is illegal for the government to do so.
The service provider tracked the data, with your permission. They also have your permission to disseminate that info (assuming it said that in the contract). The police do not need a warrant to enter your apartment if you gave the landlord written permission to let them do it.
Again, the glaring problem with the precedent is that you own your car, you do not own the cell location data, also you didn't give someone permission to track your car and disseminate the info.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-2017, 09:53 AM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,036
Thanks: 9,510
Thanked 14,508 Times in 8,756 Posts
Post Re: Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data

Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907 View Post
The service provider tracked the data, with your permission. They also have your permission to disseminate that info (assuming it said that in the contract).
Again, there is a HUGE difference inbetween:
* disseminating that info to companies / private individuals, and
* disseminating that info to the government.
The two are not equivalent


Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907 View Post
The police do not need a warrant to enter your apartment if you gave the landlord written permission to let them do it.
When did anybody give permission for the police to be given that info without a warrant?
When did anybody give permission for the police to receive that info?

Again, you're blindly assuming the two are equivalent.
They are not.

And you skew your analogy to void the parallel. The equivalent would have been if the tenants gave permission for the landlord to enter, and the landlord decided to bring the police with him (which the tenant never agreed to).
In your example, the wording makes plain the tenant gave permission for the police to enter, which has no intelligible parallel here. Nobody gave the police permission to acquire this data.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907 View Post
Again, the glaring problem with the precedent is that you own your car, you do not own the cell location data, also you didn't give someone permission to track your car and disseminate the info.
Again, a private individual doing that would be acceptable. A private individual could attach the device.

Another example is "on-star". It collects info about location, etc. But it would likewise be prohibited from sharing it with the government without a warrant.

Another example? A gun store could keep record of a sale. Likewise, it could share that info, couldn't it.
But would you think that they could automatically be allowed to share that info with the government when there is no law or warrant establishing that?

You don't seem to acknowledge the difference between a business / private individual and the government.


The precedent is there. They actually used your argument.
Quote:
Wednesday’s ruling by a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement officials to obtain a warrant before seeking information about a person’s historical mobile phone location from the cellphone company. The ruling suggests that citizens do not have to give up their privacy rights just because their cellphone providers know their whereabouts.
....
According to the government, people surrender their privacy rights when they voluntarily hand over information to cellphone companies. But the latest ruling rejected the argument, saying that this information is protected by the Fourth Amendment because it can reveal a person’s private details of movements over time.

“People cannot be deemed to have volunteered to forfeit expectations of privacy by simply seeking active participation in society through use of their cellphones,” the court said in the ruling.
__________________
“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
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-2017, 11:38 AM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,897
Thanks: 170
Thanked 4,954 Times in 3,600 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data

Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907 View Post
Except that is exactly what you did when you signed the contract with the service provider.
If more people actually read their contract with the phone scumbags, the providers would be broke in no time.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
cell, court, data, decide, for, location, need, phone, police, supreme, warrants

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0