Smith v Maryland - US Supreme Court Case 1979 - Phone Records belong to phone company, no privacy

Find Law ^ | June 20, 1979 | SCOTUS

[TheEaglehasLanded]

Freep Arlen Specter's office, all these Republican wimps office. These guys don't do their homework, I found this in an hour. The RATS come out with charges saying this is an impeachable offense and needs to be investigated but Bush followed the left wing court from 1979 precedent. I don't think this has been overturned either because Bank records and drivers license records are also not considered private either.

[kinoxi]

looks like a good find, thanks

[TheEaglehasLanded]

Key Paragraphs

The installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. Pp. 739-746.

(a) Application of the Fourth Amendment depends on whether the person invoking its protection can claim a "legitimate expectation of privacy" that has been invaded by government action. This inquiry normally embraces two questions: first, whether the individual has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and second, whether his expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 . Pp. 739-741.

(b) Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he did, his expectation was not "legitimate." First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does in fact record it for various legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an expectation of privacy merely by using his home phone rather than some other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." When petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the information [442 U.S. 735, 736] to the police, cf. United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 . Pp. 741-746.

[demlosers]

Comments?

[ndt]

thanks for the heads up. Reading.....

[TheEaglehasLanded]

Other than Jeff Sessions did any Republican Senator even mention Supreme Court precedent, the Republican Head of Judiciary wants to investigate Supreme Court precedent being followed.

[kinoxi]

i prefered a few others

[gondramB]

Wow. I agree with the three dissenting judges but on the surface this would appear to mean the established law is no expectation of privacy for any record kept about you that isn't physically on your property... finance records, phone records, Internet records ...anything.

[Gordongekko909]

::Shepardizes::

It's been criticized, but as far as SCOTUS is concerned, it's still good law.

[ndt]

Actually I'm not sure you saw this from the other thread, but this seems to be about as specific as you can get. Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records

[sinkspur]

First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does in fact record it for various legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an expectation of privacy merely by using his home phone rather than some other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." When petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the information.

This is a bigger slam-dunk than the international NSA surveillance. This court opinion deals with the privacy of phone numbers tied to a specific person and concluded there is none.

[Gordongekko909]

All easily distinguishable. In this case, the government didn't look at the subject matter, which it would with all of that stuff; rather, they just determined that a call was made.

[KoRn]

Regardless. I plan on looking into Qwest for my business.

No I'm not a terrorist, and no I have nothing to hide. Its a shame that I even feel the need to say such things. Bottom line is, it's no one's business what I do with a telephone or Internet. I'm going to start using the strongest possible encryption for all of my communications just hoping that they will waste their time to flag it and spend resources to decrypt and find out who I'm going out to dine with on any given night.

[TheEaglehasLanded]

That's fine, my problem is with the hypocricy and treachery of the RATS that know this stuff and act like they don't. They know the Supreme Court precedents, it's their bible and then to forget echelon, able danger, and carnivore during Clintoon years that monitored actually content of conversations.

[ndt]

I would say that this ruling is without doubt in the administrations favor. Needless to say I concur with the dissenting opinion but that is a moot point.

That said, the link I posted above very specifically outlines the requirements for accessing this information for counterintelligence purposes. Law being what it is, there might be something else pertinent, if you see something let me know.

The key section below
"The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director, may...

request the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and"

[KoRn]

Same here. I love how Pelosi went on TV and acted as if she knew little of this and was pretending to be 'outraged'.

[Jay Howard Smith]

Regardless. I plan on looking into Qwest for my business.

Qwest Privacy Policy which is readily available on the web states:

* "Our representatives pull up account records and may refer to your bill, your calling patterns, and other information we have to answer questions you may have or recommend how we can best serve you."

* "We share information within our Qwest companies to enable us to better understand our customers' product and service needs, and to learn how to best design, develop, and package products and services to meet those needs. . . . Currently, our primary lines of business include local and long-distance services, wireless services, cable services, dedicated web hosting, Internet access for businesses and consumers, on-line services, and directory publishing. We also offer other products and services, for example, Frame Relay, Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), telephone equipment, voice mail services, and directory advertising."

* "As a general rule, Qwest does not release customer account information to unaffiliated third parties without your permission unless we have a business relationship with those companies where the disclosure is appropriate."

[demlosers]

There is no right to privacy in the United States unless if it violates the 4th Amendment - and this isn't it. I'll add...this is especially true for an employer employee relationship while the employee is on the job.

[kayak]

ping

[ndt]

I wouldn't jump so fast to applaud this ruling. All that case does is say that it is not a 4th amendment issue, there are still laws (see link above)

"..provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States"

This is not an invitation to go fishing, however it is a rather wishy washy statement. This is the kind of wording that lawyers can fight over for weeks.