Posted on 08/06/2026 12:21:55 PM PDT by CFW
A federal judge in Mississippi ruled Wednesday that “tower dump” warrants are unconstitutional, declining to reverse a lower court decision refusing the government’s request to obtain the search warrants in a series of violent crime investigations.
A “tower dump” involves cellphone companies providing law enforcement with access to the time and location data of all mobile devices connected to specific cell towers during a designated time window.
Law enforcement had sought approval for several of these search warrants as part of criminal investigations into gang-related activity in the Jackson, Miss., area last year, arguing the data could help identify all those potentially involved, particularly in incidents with unknown suspects.
A magistrate judge denied the applications, holding that “tower dumps” are impermissible general warrants. The district judge agreed.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Judge Reeves said tower dump warrants violate the Fourth Amendment because they require searching the cellphone records of countless innocent people to identify suspects. He called them the modern equivalent of the general warrants the Founders sought to prohibit.
Not to worry. Flock cameras will fill in the gaps.
Good, and we should now outlaw flock cameras
But the resident jackboot lickers will get upset if you take down the Flockin’ cameras.
Chicago PD and the current FBI series use immediate location data from cell towers to track suspects, especially during abductions. And their facial recognition allows a few seconds to make an ID using every street and store and bar camera plus subway and toll road and speed cameras.
When the university library where I worked before I retired was adding and adding new camera locations I joked to a coworker “The next ones will be placed inside the backs of the toilet bowls.” She said: “Good. I’ll give ‘em a show.”
Good thing Orwell’s 1984 was only a novel. /S Once the socialists take over our government after our side doesn’t feel like voting, THEY will run all of those and will watch us carefully.
Read the fine print, folks!
So this means there won’t be any new crime documentaries because so many of them show how cell tower records are used to track the suspect’s travels. Unintended consequences!!
“Good, and we should now outlaw flock cameras”
How about Motorola?
The reason I ask, I have been convinced to be scared of Flock cameras - and I am scared to death - so much so I won’t even drive into town to rob a bank.
No one has told me how to feel about Motorola cameras yet.
Will instructions about Motorola be flashed to my computer soon?
This same logic should apply to Stingrays and other tower replication hardware used by governments to harvest phone IDs of anyone nearby.
Never walk into the police station with your cell phone
I know the overarching problem with this, but if my daughter is kidnapped, I really do want them to be able to follow this kind of communication. The law can be protected by not allowing use of the material outside of the case they were researching, but there are many nabbings on the street where their cellphones are used to trace the kidnappers.
“The next ones will be placed inside the backs of the toilet bowls.” She said: “Good. I’ll give ‘em a show.”
I am no lawyer so tell me if I am wrong: People do not usually have a legal expectation of privacy on a public street.
People do rightfully have expectations of privacy in a bathroom stall - even if the stall is on private property.
“The reason I ask, I have been convinced to be scared of Flock cameras - and I am scared to death - so much so I won’t even drive into town to rob a bank.”
Similar in my case, although it’s GOP Meetings. I’d rather not put a target on myself for when the other side takes power.
“I know the overarching problem with this, but if my daughter is kidnapped, I really do want them to be able to follow this kind of communication”
At the VERY LEAST a search warrant should be required to access flock data, just as it’s required to get cell phone information.
By the way, it’s very, very, unlikely that anyone here’s daughter will be kidnapped - don’t be fooled by the cell phone alerts - at least here in Texas, virtually all are Hispanics and I suspect not high class Hispanics.
This was an extremely value source of information in finding voter fraud/ballot box stuffing incidents.
So, of course it’s unconstitutional . . .
Fine. IF the police (or FBI, or CIA, or DHS, or ICE) have a SPECIFIC cell phone number (or a specific number of people) they need to search for across a wide number of towers, then all they have to do is request a warrant for those cell phones.
RE: then all they have to do is request a warrant for those cell phones.
“I got warrant right here, Sheriff.”—bestselling author George Plimpton in Rio Lobo with John Wayne.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKQiQ58z-ZI&t=136s
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.