Breaking news: 11th Circuit rules that cell phone location data is protected under the 4th Amendment

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Source and more details here.

The government and police regularly use location data pulled off of cell phone towers to put criminals at the scenes of crimes—often without a warrant. Well, an appeals court ruled today that the practice is unconstitutional, in one of the strongest judicial defenses of technology privacy rights we've seen in a while. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the government illegally obtained and used Quartavious Davis's cell phone location data to help convict him in a string of armed robberies in Miami and unequivocally stated that cell phone location information is protected by the Fourth Amendment.

"In short, we hold that cell site location information is within the subscriber’s reasonable expectation of privacy," the court ruled in an opinion written by Judge David Sentelle. "The obtaining of that data without a warrant is a Fourth Amendment violation." In Davis's case, police used his cell phone's call history against him to put him at the scene of several armed robberies. They obtained a court order—which does not require the government to show probable cause—not a warrant, to do so. From now on, that'll be illegal. The decision applies only in the Eleventh Circuit, but sets a strong precedent for future cases. The American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case, said that the decision is a "resounding defense of the Fourth Amendment's continuing vitality in the digital age.

Comments

[goumindong.livejournal.com]

Its very likely that SCOTUS will overturn this.

Jones only applies to placing tracking devices, not tracking devices that the owner as willingly placed on their person and broadcast.

Similarly the third courts decision against cell phone location data will almost certainly be rejected due to prior precedent with regards to pen register data (that is, customers should know that cell phone providers need to record location data for billing purposes and so making an outgoing call makes the data subject to the third party doctrine)

[deborahkla.livejournal.com]

Every time I read SCOTUS I think SCROTUS, which is a pretty good way to describe that horrible right wing majority on the court (Scalia in particular), I can't stand that pudgy little bastard.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

He's an awful person and terribly trollish for someone appointed to the highest court in the nation.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

[rose-cat.livejournal.com]

And here I thought it was just me...

[deborahkla.livejournal.com]

Great minds obviously think alike. ;-) Love your icon, btw.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

We'll have to see. I won't make any predictions; I have no training in law, so I'll defer to others regarding your analysis of why or why it wouldn't stand an appeal.

But the judge did cover the point you raised ""The Third Circuit went on to observe that 'a cell phone customer has not ‘voluntarily’ shared his location information with a cellular provider in any meaningful way.' That circuit further noted that 'it is unlikely that cell phone customers are aware that their cell phone providers collect and store historical location information,'” Sentelle wrote."