Posted on 06/22/2018 7:49:55 AM PDT by TexasGurl24
Cell phones perform their wide and growing variety of functions by continuously connecting to a set of radio antennas called cell sites. Each time a phone connects to a cell site, it generates a time-stamped record known as cell-site location information (CSLI). Wireless carriers collect and store this information for their own business purposes. Here, after the FBI identified the cell phone numbers of several robbery suspects, prosecutors were granted court orders to obtain the suspects cell phone records under the Stored Communications Act. Wireless carriers produced CSLI for petitioner Timothy Carpenters phone, and the Government was able to obtain 12,898 location points cataloging Carpenters movements over 127 daysan average of 101 data points per day. Carpenter moved to suppress the data, arguing that the Governments seizure of the records without obtaining a warrant supported by probable cause violated the Fourth Amendment. The District Court denied the motion, and prosecutors used the records at trial to show that Carpenters phone was near four of the robbery locations at the time those robberies occurred. Carpenter was convicted. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that Carpenter lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location information collected by the FBI because he had shared that information with his wireless carriers.
Held: 1. The Governments acquisition of Carpenters cell-site records was a Fourth Amendment search. Pp. 418.
(a) The Fourth Amendment protects not only property interests but certain expectations of privacy as well. Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 351. Thus, when an individual seeks to preserve something as private, and his expectation of privacy is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable, official intrusion into that sphere generally qualifies as a search and requires a warrant supported by probable cause. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735, 740 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). The analysis regarding which expectations of privacy are entitled to protection is informed by historical understandings of what was deemed an unreasonable search and seizure when [the Fourth Amendment] was adopted. Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 149. These Founding-era understandings continue to inform this Court when applying the Fourth Amendment to innovations in surveillance tools. See, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27. Pp. 47.
(b) The digital data at issuepersonal location information maintained by a third partydoes not fit neatly under existing precedents but lies at the intersection of two lines of cases. One set addresses a persons expectation of privacy in his physical location and movements. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. 400 (five Justices concluding that privacy concerns would be raised by GPS tracking). The other addresses a persons expectation of privacy in information voluntarily turned over to third parties. See United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435 (no expectation of privacy in financial records held by a bank), and Smith, 442 U. S. 735 (no expectation of privacy in records of dialed telephone numbers conveyed to telephone company). Pp. 710.
(c) Tracking a persons past movements through CSLI partakes of many of the qualities of GPS monitoring considered in Jonesit is detailed, encyclopedic, and effortlessly compiled. At the same time, however, the fact that the individual continuously reveals his location to his wireless carrier implicates the third-party principle of Smith and Miller. Given the unique nature of cell-site records, this Court declines to extend Smith and Miller to cover them. Pp. 1018.
(1) A majority of the Court has already recognized that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements. Allowing government access to cell-site recordswhich hold for many Americans the privacies of life, Riley v. California, 573 U. S. ___, ___contravenes that expectation. In fact, historical cell-site records present even greater privacy concerns than the GPS monitoring considered in Jones: They give the Government near perfect surveillance and allow it to travel back in time to retrace a persons whereabouts, subject only to the five-year retention policies of most wireless carriers. The Government contends that CSLI data is less precise than GPS information, but it thought the data accurate enough here to highlight it during closing argument in Carpenters trial. At any rate, the rule the Court adopts must take account of more sophisticated systems that are already in use or in development, Kyllo, 533 U. S., at 36, and the accuracy of CSLI is rapidly approaching GPS-level precision. Pp. 1215.
(2) The Government contends that the third-party doctrine governs this case, because cell-site records, like the records in Smith and Miller, are business records, created and maintained by wireless carriers. But there is a world of difference between the limited types of personal information addressed in Smith and Miller and the exhaustive chronicle of location information casually collected by wireless carriers. The third-party doctrine partly stems from the notion that an individual has a reduced expectation of privacy in information knowingly shared with another. Smith and Miller, however, did not rely solely on the act of sharing. They also considered the nature of the particular documents sought and limitations on any legitimate expectation of privacy concerning their contents. Miller, 425 U. S., at 442. In mechanically applying the third-party doctrine to this case the Government fails to appreciate the lack of comparable limitations on the revealing nature of CSLI. Nor does the second rationale for the third-party doctrine voluntary exposurehold up when it comes to CSLI. Cell phone location information is not truly shared as the term is normally understood. First, cell phones and the services they provide are such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that carrying one is indispensable to participation in modern society. Riley, 573 U. S., at ___. Second, a cell phone logs a cell-site record by dint of its operation, without any affirmative act on the users part beyond powering up. Pp. 1517.
(d) This decision is narrow. It does not express a view on matters not before the Court; does not disturb the application of Smith and Miller or call into question conventional surveillance techniques and tools, such as security cameras; does not address other business records that might incidentally reveal location information; and does not consider other collection techniques involving foreign affairs or national security. Pp. 1718. 2. The Government did not obtain a warrant supported by probable cause before acquiring Carpenters cell-site records. It acquired those records pursuant to a court order under the Stored Communications Act, which required the Government to show reasonable grounds for believing that the records were relevant and material to an ongoing investigation. 18 U. S. C. §2703(d). That showing falls well short of the probable cause required for a warrant. Consequently, an order issued under §2703(d) is not a permissible mechanism for accessing historical cell-site records. Not all orders compelling the production of documents will require a showing of probable cause.
A warrant is required only in the rare case where the suspect has a legitimate privacy interest in records held by a third party. And even though the Government will generally need a warrant to access CSLI, case-specific exceptionse.g., exigent circumstancesmay support a warrantless search. Pp. 1822. 819 F. 3d 880, reversed and remanded.
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
I think I’ll just leave my cell phone at home when I do robberies.
Roberts joins the libs.
When I do robberies I take my wife’s phone.
“When I do robberies I take my wifes phone.”
LOL
This decision was correct. Probably the only lib winning opinion I have ever agreed with.
I feel the same way Dave. At face value I like the ruling. I’ve never wanted to read both sides of a ruling but I’m very curious this time why the majority of conservative leaning judges dissented here. I’m gonna have to read the whole thing this time.
I still can't figure out how my relationship with my bank or with my phone company has three "parties", and how my bank or my phone company is some distant "third party" and not the second party in that very tight relationship. That sleight of hand has enabled all of this warrantless searching.
Can somebody help me out here? Who's the "second party", if not the phone company?
So is your position that the government should be able to track all citizens, at all times, using their cell phone. And be able to force cell companies to give them that data...all with no warrant?
“Can somebody help me out here? Who’s the “second party”, if not the phone company? “
Nice catch. That is the Government that made themselves the second party almost without anyone noticing. Creeps.
I agree. It does not say the government cannot get the data.
It says it cannot have access to all the data all the time just to fishing in it. It has to get a warrant.
Unfortunately too many “Conservatives” prefer what they are told is for our “security” over our Liberty.
I do not believe government data fishing expeditions enhance our security. Most crimes are solved after the fact, not prevented beforehand. And after the fact warrants are not hard to obtain.
Based on this, the IRS cannot utilize banking records, credit card purchase history, et al, to go after you without a warrant. Read the dissenting opinions compared to the decision. There are likely other areas that are now sue-worthy based on this decision.
I like the decision, but can understand the reasoning of the conservatives.
Now, when does the court address the Stingray issue. That is a lot more intrusive and should require a warrant.
My position is the The State has reasonable cause to suspect an individual of a crime, and they can convince a judge that they have a need to access data, they should be required to get a warrant, just like they would be required to get a warrant to search a house.
“Based on this, the IRS cannot utilize banking records, credit card purchase history, et al, to go after you without a warrant. “
Very cool
exactly
Agreed.
Yet there are some, even here, who are willing to give up rights for the illusion of safety...
Good!
Good. Fedzilla needs to be shoved back into its Constitutional cage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.