The ruling is limited to cell-site location data.
In June 2018, the Supreme Court issued a decision that has been widely hailed as a win for the privacy rights of American citizens. While the full reach of the ruling is not yet known, the decision will now force law enforcement agencies to seek a warrant if they want to track an individual’s location for an extended period of time.
In the case of Carpenter v. United States, a string of armed robberies in Michigan and Ohio led to one man confessing to his involvement to the FBI. He then gave his cell phone number to the FBI, which then obtained cell-site records placing two other men, Timothy Carpenter and Timothy Sanders, near each of the robberies. They were each charged with aiding and abetting robbery. Their attorneys then moved to suppress this evidence, arguing that the government was required to obtain a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. This would mandate that they show probable cause before obtaining the data, rather than the lower standard of “reasonable grounds” that they used under the Stored Communications Act. A federal appeals court ruled in favor of the government, but the Supreme Court disagreed in a sharply divided 5-4 opinion.
As a Riverside criminal defense lawyer can explain, the ruling is limited to cell-site location data. However, it clarifies the law as it relates to information that cell phones share with third parties. According to Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the opinion, cell phones play a “pervasive and insistent part of daily life.” More importantly, cell-site location data is generated by almost any activity on our phones, “including incoming calls, texts, or e-mails and countless other data connections that a phone automatically makes when checking for news, weather or social media updates.” He noted that our technological progress has given law enforcement a powerful new tool — and that the tool risks the kind of violations of individual rights that the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect.
Under this new ruling, there are exceptions to the need to get a warrant for cell phone site-location data. According to a Riverside criminal defense lawyer, this includes pursuing suspects and protecting individuals who have been threatened with immediate harm.
The ruling is incredibly important for criminal defendants and suspects in criminal cases, as it will provide an avenue to challenge evidence that may have been collected illegally, and prevent law enforcement from using unconstitutional techniques to gather evidence. An experienced Riverside criminal defense lawyer can analyze the specific facts of a case to determine if there has been a violation of the warrant requirement for cell-site search data.
If you have been charged with a crime, the Chambers Law Firm can help. We aggressively represent our clients, and explore all avenues for challenge the state’s case, including questioning how evidence was collected. Contact our firm today at 714-760-4088 or dchambers@clfca.com to schedule a free initial consultation.
