Last night, I posted a blog entry about why I think we need a bright line on government requests for cell phone location data. In that entry, I expressed my mixed reaction to a Third Circuit appellate decision that said that judges have the discretion to require a warrant.
Consistent with my perspective that there is too much chaos and we need a bright line, consider the following news headlines on the court’s decision. What impression do you get about whether the Fourth Amendment will protect your location data?
- Court Throws The Book At Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking
- Federal court: 4th Amendment standard does not always apply to mobile phone location data
- 3rd Circuit: Probable Cause May Be Needed for Cell Phone Location Data
- Appeals Court Upholds Judicial Oversight Of Cell Phone Tracking By Law Enforcement
- Court OKs Warrantless Cell-Site Tracking
- Court: Judges can demand warrant for cell locales
- Government may need warrant to access cellphone records
- Court Rules Government Must Get Warrant to Access Cell Phone Location Data
- Appeals court in Phila.: Warrant may be needed to track cell phones
Okay, now I know we cannot rely on news headlines or blog headlines to know our rights, but if the media can be left with somewhat different impressions about what the decision said and means, then on some level, yesterday’s ruling muddied the waters more.
Perhaps the headline should have been: Does the government need a warrant to get your cell location data? Court: it depends on the judge
Our constitutional protections should not depend on which judge is assigned to a case by court roulette. Yes, I realize that some (most notably the government) would argue that there are no constitutional protections for such data because of “third party doctrine” or for other reasons, but they’re all wrong. There. I said it and I’m not ashamed. They’re all wrong. As a matter of public policy, Fourth Amendment protections for “property” and “papers” need to apply to our devices and our information, wherever they are located. Without such protection, our other rights — such as freedom of association and freedom of religion — may be chilled by knowledge that the government can request and obtain our records even though they have no probable cause to suspect we have engaged in criminal activity.
Whatever wrong turns the courts have made on this issue, someone needs to restore Fourth Amendment protections. Perhaps the courts did not fully appreciate how much information is stored. Perhaps they did not appreciate how readily such information can be combined with other information. Whatever the reasons, the government must not be allowed to simply demand records that contain our personal information absent a showing of probable cause. Simply asserting that records are needed as part of a criminal investigation is just too low a standard.
There is little doubt in my mind that this issue will eventually wend its way to the Supreme Court, but that might take years. In the interim, how many of us will have our private information just handed over to the government with no or inadequate judicial oversight?
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.