Monitored Alarm Systems

There have been some mixed rulings on whether the government must show a warrant and probable cause (a la what 's left of the 4th Amendment), to obtain cell phone location information. The courts have ruled differently, but the federal courts, for the most part have to say much more pleasant, no power is required (district court seem lean in the opposite direction). However, in a bit of a surprise, a federal court went the other direction and said a warrant under the 4th Change is required.

The court actually puts the question directly and worries about what it means when the government can only get this information without having probable cause:

What does this mean for ordinary Americans? That will at all times, our physical movements are monitored and recorded, and when the government can make a showing of less-than-probable cause, it can obtain these records of our movements, study the map of our lives, and learn the many things that we show of ourselves through our physical presence.

After passing through the relevant (and sometimes contradictory) laws and jurisprudence, the Court finds that, although general location of the property may be public, rather than private information, a huge collection of such information seems to be going over the line. That 's especially if the government can access multiple records of several people:

The cell-site location records at issue in time allow the tracking of the large majority of Americans. So, the collection of cell-site location has effectively enables "weight" or "wholesale" electronic surveillance, and poses greater Fourth Amendment concerns as a single electronically controlled drive. This supports the court 's conclusion that cell phone users draw a reasonable expectation of privacy in long-term cell-site location, and maintain that the government' s receipt of these documents is to find a Fourth Amendment.

The court immersed in the controversy over the third party doctrine, which basically says that once you 'give up' information to a third party, you no longer need to fourth Amendment protection over them - and in this case argued that the government given the user their location information for mobile operators. The Court finds that the third party doctrine still apply to such information, but that it should not apply to cumulative Records and said that this is an important limitation of the third party doctrine.

The court concluded that cumulative cell-site location has protected sufficiently serious privacy concerns imply that an exemption should apply from the third-party disclosure doctrine for them, because it has the content to illegal state interference to be prohibited. 7th Consequently, concludes the court that an exception to the third-party disclosure doctrine applies here, because mobile phone users a reasonable expectation of privacy in cumulative cell-site location have records, despite the fact that the records are collected and stored a third party.

Finally and most importantly, the court makes a clear rejection of the language often used excuses by the government to pick up at the 4th Change:

The fiction that the vast majority of Americans agree that unauthorized access to government records of a significant proportion of their movements with "select", must carry a cell phone will be rejected. Given the dramatic developments in technology, needs to develop the Fourth Amendment doctrine to mobile phone users 's reasonable expectation of privacy in cumulative cell-site-site storage requirements.

It 's definitely a convincing and well-reasoned arguments of Judge Nicholas Garaufis, and we hope that others will follow dishes. However, we fear that he is such a fine line in distinguishing this from other cases, ruling that he would be too easy for higher courts set aside this decision in order.

Permalink | Comments | E-mail this story