Federal court rules police warrantless tracking of cell phones is unconstitutional

[Anonymous]

Link:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/d-c-court-rules-warrant-is-required-for-stingray-cell-phone-tracking/

Law enforcement use of one tracking tool, the cell-site simulator, to track a suspect's phone without a warrant violates the Constitution, the D.C. Court of Appeals said Thursday in a landmark ruling for privacy and Fourth Amendment rights as they pertain to policing tactics.

The ruling could have broad implications for law enforcement's use of cell-site simulators, which were increasingly deployed during the Obama administration. The prior administration defended the use of such technology, and resisted the ACLU's attempts to learn more about its use.

Stingray technology allows local police (including Alrington, VA) and federal agencies to mimic a cell phone tower to the phone connect to the device instead of its regular network.

In a decision that reversed the decision of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and overturned the conviction of a robbery and sexual assault suspect, the D.C. Court of Appeals determined the use of the cell-site simulator "to locate a person through his or her cellphone invades the person's actual, legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her location information and is a search."

The Fourth Amendment guarantees, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The technology often captures non-suspect cell phones in locations where it is used. The information obtained is permanently stored on police information systems for possible future law enforcement use.

[Anonymous]

Good. None of this is good for our civil liberties.

- A moderate liberal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good. None of this is good for our civil liberties.

- A moderate liberal

I am also very pleased with this decision.

Warrantless use of Stingrays on every citizen must end. This technology never should have been used without a warrant in the first place.

My guess is that police outside the ruling's jurisdiction will keep right on using Stingrays on everyone until a court actually forces them to cease and desist.

[Anonymous]

Good for the court. Too many people say, "I don't have anything to hide. They can monitor all they want!" without realizing how much knowledge can be derived about their behavior, beliefs, health and activities from systems like this, and the police have no policies on how long they keep the data or how it should be maintained. And who do you think has better data security - the cops or Equifax?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good for the court. Too many people say, "I don't have anything to hide. They can monitor all they want!" without realizing how much knowledge can be derived about their behavior, beliefs, health and activities from systems like this, and the police have no policies on how long they keep the data or how it should be maintained. And who do you think has better data security - the cops or Equifax?

Those are excellent points.

It's refreshing to hear someone refute the specious and misdirected argument: "I have nothing to hide."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for the court. Too many people say, "I don't have anything to hide. They can monitor all they want!" without realizing how much knowledge can be derived about their behavior, beliefs, health and activities from systems like this, and the police have no policies on how long they keep the data or how it should be maintained. And who do you think has better data security - the cops or Equifax?

Those are excellent points.

It's refreshing to hear someone refute the specious and misdirected argument: "I have nothing to hide."

Daniel Solove is the guru in this area. This paper https://papers.ssrn.com/soL3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 explains why that position is so bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. None of this is good for our civil liberties.

- A moderate liberal

I am also very pleased with this decision.

Warrantless use of Stingrays on every citizen must end. This technology never should have been used without a warrant in the first place.

My guess is that police outside the ruling's jurisdiction will keep right on using Stingrays on everyone until a court actually forces them to cease and desist.

My guess is it will eventually end up before the Supreme Court and the conservatives on the court will side with the cops the way they always do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. None of this is good for our civil liberties.

- A moderate liberal

I am also very pleased with this decision.

Warrantless use of Stingrays on every citizen must end. This technology never should have been used without a warrant in the first place.

My guess is that police outside the ruling's jurisdiction will keep right on using Stingrays on everyone until a court actually forces them to cease and desist.

My guess is it will eventually end up before the Supreme Court and the conservatives on the court will side with the cops the way they always do.

Politicizing this issue is a very ignorant thing to do, considering that the Obama administration fought tooth and nail to first keep Stingray "classified" then to defend its blatantly unconstitutional use:

https://www.aclu.org/aclu-v-doj-lawsuit-enforce-nsa-warrantless-surveillance-foia-request

The reality is: few notable figures from the left OR the right work to protect our civil liberties from government intrusion.

Two exceptions (one democrat, one republican) are: Ron Wyden and Rand Paul. More Americans from BOTH parties need to familiarize themselves with these unconstitutional government intrusions, and work together to demand they stop (either by lawsuits or lawmaking).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. None of this is good for our civil liberties.

- A moderate liberal

I am also very pleased with this decision.

Warrantless use of Stingrays on every citizen must end. This technology never should have been used without a warrant in the first place.

My guess is that police outside the ruling's jurisdiction will keep right on using Stingrays on everyone until a court actually forces them to cease and desist.

My guess is it will eventually end up before the Supreme Court and the conservatives on the court will side with the cops the way they always do.

Politicizing this issue is a very ignorant thing to do, considering that the Obama administration fought tooth and nail to first keep Stingray "classified" then to defend its blatantly unconstitutional use:

https://www.aclu.org/aclu-v-doj-lawsuit-enforce-nsa-warrantless-surveillance-foia-request

The reality is: few notable figures from the left OR the right work to protect our civil liberties from government intrusion.

Two exceptions (one democrat, one republican) are: Ron Wyden and Rand Paul. More Americans from BOTH parties need to familiarize themselves with these unconstitutional government intrusions, and work together to demand they stop (either by lawsuits or lawmaking).

Agreed, and I disagree with Rand Paul on most other things.

But, the truth is that most people are more addicted to oversharing and voyeurism via FB and don't realize how much data can be gathered about them. We conduct transactions using personal information all the time - we sign up for a loyalty card in exchange for pennies of discounts, but we have no idea whether that's a good deal or not because we don't understand the value of our data. We let the police use license plate readers, and Stingray and other intrusive technologies without insisting on appropriate governance and restrictions, all in the name of "safety."

[Anonymous]

I value my privacy, even though I have done nothing wrong. That's why I give to the ACLU.

[Anonymous]

Moderate liberal here.

Personally, I completely agree with the decision. I hate the idea of being tracked, for all of the reasons discussed above.

However, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that noting my location constitutes "search" in violation of my expectation of privacy. What exactly are they searching? My location, which anyone around me can see?

I actually take more issue with Google, Amazon, Facebook and other tech companies tracking my whereabouts and everything else about me. That really disturbs me. I turn location services off on all possible cell apps, and removed FB entirely, but there are some apps that just can't get around it (like Google Maps - I use it for directions knowing full well that they are tracking everything). I wish there were more regulations on this.

[Anonymous]

An excellent decision, yes, but it is not the opinion of a federal court. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals is the equivalent of the highest court in a state. It is not a federal court. (That would be the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.)

Let's hope other states and federal circuits follow the District's lead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Moderate liberal here.

Personally, I completely agree with the decision. I hate the idea of being tracked, for all of the reasons discussed above.

However, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that noting my location constitutes "search" in violation of my expectation of privacy. What exactly are they searching? My location, which anyone around me can see?

I actually take more issue with Google, Amazon, Facebook and other tech companies tracking my whereabouts and everything else about me. That really disturbs me. I turn location services off on all possible cell apps, and removed FB entirely, but there are some apps that just can't get around it (like Google Maps - I use it for directions knowing full well that they are tracking everything). I wish there were more regulations on this.

This is the irony in all this discussion. Everyone is so willing to say that police tracking of cell phones is BAD, but freely and willingly allow social apps to do the same.
I guess when one of the CEOs of one of these social apps decides to provide the police with the data they want, people may start to become more cynical about providing businesses with this information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Moderate liberal here.

Personally, I completely agree with the decision. I hate the idea of being tracked, for all of the reasons discussed above.

However, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that noting my location constitutes "search" in violation of my expectation of privacy. What exactly are they searching? My location, which anyone around me can see?

I actually take more issue with Google, Amazon, Facebook and other tech companies tracking my whereabouts and everything else about me. That really disturbs me. I turn location services off on all possible cell apps, and removed FB entirely, but there are some apps that just can't get around it (like Google Maps - I use it for directions knowing full well that they are tracking everything). I wish there were more regulations on this.

The issue of the search is collection of information about you and whether a warrant should be required for the government to collect that information. In general, this area of the law has really reached to the power imbalance between law enforcement and the individual. The police could assign someone to follow you, and if they do that, it costs them resources. If the police use a tracking device, on the other hand, they can "fire and forget" and it costs them virtually nothing. That extends the power imbalance between the police and the individual, and that typically concerns the courts and makes them want to require police to get a warrant and prove that intrusion into your personal life is necessary and reasonable.

In addition to the imbalance, using a Stingray collects information from all cell phones in the range of the Stingray, not just the target phone, and that constitutes a "search" of everyone whose data is collected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. None of this is good for our civil liberties.

- A moderate liberal

I am also very pleased with this decision.

Warrantless use of Stingrays on every citizen must end. This technology never should have been used without a warrant in the first place.

My guess is that police outside the ruling's jurisdiction will keep right on using Stingrays on everyone until a court actually forces them to cease and desist.

My guess is it will eventually end up before the Supreme Court and the conservatives on the court will side with the cops the way they always do.

Politicizing this issue is a very ignorant thing to do, considering that the Obama administration fought tooth and nail to first keep Stingray "classified" then to defend its blatantly unconstitutional use:

https://www.aclu.org/aclu-v-doj-lawsuit-enforce-nsa-warrantless-surveillance-foia-request

The reality is: few notable figures from the left OR the right work to protect our civil liberties from government intrusion.

Two exceptions (one democrat, one republican) are: Ron Wyden and Rand Paul. More Americans from BOTH parties need to familiarize themselves with these unconstitutional government intrusions, and work together to demand they stop (either by lawsuits or lawmaking).

Agreed, and I disagree with Rand Paul on most other things.

But, the truth is that most people are more addicted to oversharing and voyeurism via FB and don't realize how much data can be gathered about them. We conduct transactions using personal information all the time - we sign up for a loyalty card in exchange for pennies of discounts, but we have no idea whether that's a good deal or not because we don't understand the value of our data. We let the police use license plate readers, and Stingray and other intrusive technologies without insisting on appropriate governance and restrictions, all in the name of "safety."

You, my friend, truly "get it." Thanks also for including the ever-increasing use of license plate readers - both by police AND by private companies who can then sell our tracking info to the police (or anyone else).

I wish more of our politicians were clued in and willing to fight these disturbing privacy intrusions.