This is a close call, but I agree with the ruling. In the digital age, we are trying to figure out how far we want our government to be able to know our private information. I fall on the side of strong 4th Amendment protections. If law enforcement thinks that someone is guilty of a crime, then they should be required to get a warrant to search and use their cell phone data just like if they were searching their home.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Police generally need a warrant to look at records that reveal where cellphone users have been, the Supreme Court ruled Friday in a big victory for privacy interests in the digital age.
The justices’ 5-4 decision marks a big change in how police may obtain information that phone companies collect from the ubiquitous cellphone towers that allow people to make and receive calls, and transmit data. The information has become an important tool in criminal investigations.
Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by the court’s four liberals, said cellphone location information “is detailed, encyclopedic and effortlessly compiled.” Roberts wrote that “an individual maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements” as they are captured by cellphone towers.
Roberts said the court’s decision is limited to cellphone tracking information and does not affect other business records, including those held by banks. He also wrote that police still can respond to an emergency and obtain records without a warrant.
But the dissenting conservative justices, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, cast doubt on Roberts’ claim that the decision was limited. Each wrote a dissenting opinion and Kennedy said in his that the court’s “new and uncharted course will inhibit law enforcement” and “keep defendants and judges guessing for years to come.”
I disagree with Owen. I think ones right to privacy is waved when you turn phone’s location service on. You are telling the world where you are, everywhere. Why hamper law enforcement to that very public info?
Turning location service on, is the equivalent to putting your location on a digital billboard on Hwy 45 for everyone to see, and police, if interested, are not to glance over to the public declaration, in their face, without a warrant?
Disagree with you Kevin. The cellular providers can and do record your position regardless of Location Services settings. This is focused on non public data that no customer can opt out of.
Jason,
So does anyone have an expectation of privacy carrying a smart phone?
If we do, are we deluding ourselves?
Owen sez: then they should be required to get a warrant to search and use [somebodies] cell phone data just like if they were searching [that person’s] home.
Your are conflating the physical phone with 3rd party data.
The problem with this ridiculous ruling is: the data in question is not your phone data in any sense. It’s the phone company’s. Indeed, it is a necessary part of the equation for the company to actually operate cellular communications.
How stupid this ruling? This is the equivalent of requiring a court-ordered warrant for a cop to ask neighbors if they know where you went last night. I can’t wait for some scuzzbag defense lawyerman to figure out that this same logic could be applied to security camera recordings.
Could this be circumvented via contract law? For example, it would be in the terms and conditions of your contract with the provider that this data could be provided?
>The problem with this ridiculous ruling is: the data in question is not your phone data in any sense. It’s the phone company’s. Indeed, it is a necessary part of the equation for the company to actually operate cellular communications.
I disagree with your overall viewpoint. While it’s not my phone data, it is deeply personal data about me, and I currently expect the phone company to only share that data with my permission or the permission of an impartial judge who rules it is needed for a legal investigation.
Do you think it would be ok for local / state / federal authorities to be able to send an email to your ISP and request your DNS queries or browsing history from the time you started service with them until today? I do not. I think that requiring law enforcement to have an additional step of obtaining a warrant is not an undue burden to uncovering criminal activity.
I can’t believe Constitutionalists not standing up for the 14th Amendment. Lose this and the 2nd will follow.
…it is deeply personal data about me,
So is your driving record.
A trooper in Hoboken, knowing just your plate number, can look you up in about 45 seconds. Such a check will reveal your current registration status , DOB, address, previous addresses, make/model of your car, color of your hair, color of your eyes, weight, height, your face, marital status, and every stop/ticket/infraction you’ve had in your life. He can check your movements through street, toll, and 3rd party security cameras (the SCOTUS ruling specifically states it does not apply to such).
So are your banking records.
Under United States v. Miller, there is no applicable right of privacy for your records of deposits, withdrawals, loan data, dates, times, amounts, etc., etc..
And no warrant is needed to obtain either sets of records. Why is that? Because they are considered 3rd party business records that you have absolutely no control over.
….and I currently expect the phone company to only share that data with my permission.
Then you are an ignorant fool. Verizon, et. al., have been sharing your data – selling, actually – your data since the day you turned on your first cell phone (which is yet another reason this SCOTUS ruling is so blatantly stupid).
What this ruling does is assert property rights of one over the property of another. Think about that for a moment: if that concept applies in one direction, it will, in time, become applicable in the opposite direction.
>, and 3rd party security cameras
Can you clarify this? What exactly is included in 3rd Party? Are you talking DOT traffic cams, or a mom and pop ice cream parlor’s web cam, or the cam I have on the front porch of my house? Do you really think that I would immediately be compelled to comply with a police officer knocking on my door and requesting, access to and copies of, any data I have recorded from my camera?
There’s quite a difference between having “unfettered” access to government resources versus private company data. Secondly, there’s implicit agreement with regards to law enforcement access to driving records, and even banking data when using such services. There currently is not with Mobile device contracts or Internet Provider data, at least not in the agreements with my providers.