Supreme Court says warrant necessary for phone location data in win for privacy

cnet ^ | 22 JUN 18 | Alfred Ng

[DCBryan1]

The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of digital privacy.

In a 5-4 decision on Friday the justices decided that police need warrants to gather phone location data as evidence for trials. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Sixth Circuit court's decision.

Carpenter v. United States is the first case about phone location data that the Supreme Court has ruled on. That makes it a landmark decision regarding how law enforcement agencies can use technology as they build cases. The court heard arguments in the case on Nov. 29.

The dispute dates back to a 2011 robbery in Detroit, after which police gathered months of phone location data from Timothy Carpenter's phone provider. They pulled together 12,898 different locations from Carpenter, over 127 days

[Ancesthntr]

“This is why after working for the USG in certain fields I never use a phone without a battery that can be removed, and I keep an old vehicle without OnStar or GPS. “

---

This is good advice for anyone, whether or not you know that you engage in criminal activities (and I assume that most here don’t - not intentionally), simply because there are so many “crimes” on the books that we ALL violate some, just about every single day.

The “Man” is not your friend, no matter how much the individual officers may be (and usually are) thoroughly decent people. What they are like personally is very different from what their job may require them to become.

[Uncle Miltie]

right to be secure from unreasonable searches of “their persons

I believe that it is an unreasonable search of my person when the government uses my phone records to track my whereabouts on a moment to moment basis in perpetuity.

That has nothing to do with the phone itself. It is me, my body for which they are searching.

[I want the USA back]

Now, about the fact that the government monitors email and “social media” postings, and scans license plates as we drive, and uses social security number as a citizen ID, and maintains a list of people who it won’t let fly without any justification or explanation. There are more.

[Uncle Miltie]

Is it a “reasonable search” if the government plants a tracking device on your body without a warrant?

If you consider that having your butt “chipped” warrantlessly is “reasonable”, then you’ll love having your phone tracked just as identically.

[zeugma]

One again, Justice Thomas’ dissenting opinion is clear and to the point:

Also short-sighted in today's world. Normally I agree with Thomas, but he's not reliable when the government's ability to fully implement its police state is at stake.

[Alberta's Child]

Only 1 vote from saying law enforcement does NOT need a warrant to search your phone.

That's not exactly what the ruling says. The question involved whether law enforcement would need a warrant to search through phone records that relate to your phone but are owned by someone else.

The end result may be the same, but there is a very important distinction under the U.S. Constitution.

[Alberta's Child]

But think of how easy it is to use this to your advantage if you want to commit a crime.

Just give your phone to someone else to carry around for the day.

LOL.

[zeugma]

The second choice is to set Smith and Miller aside and try again using the Katz “reasonable expectation of privacy” jurisprudence that produced them.

The big problem with the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard is that it's a loophole for the government big enough to sail an aircraft carrier through.

[zeugma]

The dissent demonstrates the problem we have with political labels. Old-style GOP constervative and liberal are two sides of the same coin. They both worship state power and merely argue about the ends of that power, usually which branch of the uniparty will benefit.

That is exactly right.

[NRx]

I can’t believe I am about to write this... but the liberals are right and the conservative justices are wrong. In the modern world it is extremely difficult, for some near impossible, to function w/o the use of some technology which could leave you open to surveillance. This did not exist in the 18th century. Extending the protections of the 4th amendment to cover the realities of the modern world does not strike me as an abuse of judicial power.

I cannot believe that the Founding Fathers would have supported the ability of the state to spy on private citizens by such means sans a warrant.

[plain talk]

Thanks for the clarification. Much obliged. Even worse than I thought from a vote count standpoint.

The Supreme Court is where Trump has the potential to make perhaps his biggest impact.

[Alberta's Child]

If I was Justice Clarence Thomas, I'd simply point out that the remedy for this dilemma is to amend the Constitution -- or even to simply address the issue by statute in the meantime.

FREEPER: In today's age, it is not realistic to expect people to not have Internet access or a cell phone.

GUN GRABBER: In today's age, it is not realistic to expect the Second Amendment to apply to an AR-15.

It always cuts both ways. Clarence Thomas is not an "originalist," unlike someone like Antonin Scalia. He doesn't try to figure out what the Founders of this country were thinking when they drafted the U.S. Constitution, or what they might have thought about a modern application of Constitutional law. He's a "textualist" ... which means he cares only about what the language of the U.S. Constitution meant when it was drafted.

[Alberta's Child]

The Supreme Court is where Trump has the potential to make perhaps his biggest impact.

And yet Justice Gorsuch sided with Justice Thomas in dissenting from the majority in this case.

[Alberta's Child]

When you look at this decision closely you'll understand how untenable and illogical it may be in the long run.

The Supreme Court is saying that law enforcement officers need a warrant to get access to your phone records from your phone carrier ...

... and yet your phone carrier is free to sell your phone records to anyone and everyone if they want to.

Does this even make any sense at all?

[damper99]

Needing a warrant means nothing if it comes to the Feds investigating you. The FBI can do their own warrants or national security letters. Stroke of the pen and they have your info.

[mquinn]

Thomas is in the wrong here. By his ruling, there could not be an expectation of privacy in “letters” either.

[NRx]

Yes actually it does make sense. The 4th amendment does not apply to anyone but the government. Businesses, the press and even private citizens have always been able to snoop. But we have always drawn a bright red constitutional line with the state, which has the power to jail people.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Most importantly, how will this effect ‘She Who Shall Not Be Named’ and all of her data erasing and Blackberry smashing?

Once you put data out there, isn’t it part of the Endless Public Domain?

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Ping to Post 58. I like your answer the best so far. :)

[Alberta's Child]

I'm not seeing your logical distinction there.

Businesses, the press and private citizens may have been able to "snoop," but they have NEVER had the power to search your person or property without your permission.