The Government Can No Longer Track Your Cell Phone Without a Warrant 173
Jason Koebler (3528235) writes The government cannot use cell phone location data as evidence in a criminal proceeding without first obtaining a warrant, an appeals court ruled today, in one of the most important privacy decisions in recent memory. "In short, we hold that cell site location information is within the subscriber's reasonable expectation of privacy," the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled. "The obtaining of that data without a warrant is a Fourth Amendment violation."
FP? (Score:5, Informative)
Doesn't mean they won't keep doing it anyway.
Re:FP? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a misleading title.
It should say: "The government is expected to no longer track your cell phone without a warrant, by very naive people."
Re:FP? (Score:5, Insightful)
So they can't use the tracking data as evidence, but if they use the tracking data to find it where you are, and then sent out some agents to see what you were up to, and found other incriminating evidence, they could present that evidence in court. They could always just say they happened to be in the area. Just the data of you being somewhere probably wouldn't be compelling evidence on it's own anyway, so there probably isn't much of a need to present your cell phone location as evidence if they have real evidence anyway.
Re:FP? (Score:4, Interesting)
but if they use the tracking data to find it where you are, and then sent out some agents to see what you were up to, and found other incriminating evidence, they could present that evidence in court.
No they can't. Google fruit of the poisonous tree.
Re:FP? (Score:5, Informative)
No they can't. Google fruit of the poisonous tree.
Google parallel construction.
Re:FP? (Score:5, Informative)
And then google "parallel construction", which is designed to side step the whole poisonous tree and pretend like it never happened.
In other words, it's a strategy of law enforcement to lie about the origins of a case so they can use illegal or flimsy evidence to prosecute you anyway.
Re:FP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which they only gathered initially after using the stuff without probable cause or legal means.
Parellel construction is the fruit of the poisonous tree, because the starting point of the investigation begins with "we have this, we're not legally allowed to have it, but what can we dig up to make it look like we got this legally?".
As far as I'm concerned, it's essentially a legal strategy to allow perjury.
If they had legally obtained information based on probable cause, there would be no issue. What they end up with is something else.
Re:FP? (Score:5, Informative)
See this Slashdot Story [slashdot.org].
The Supreme Court has already ok'd anonymous tips to police as grounds for stopping a searching without a warrant. So what happens is that they track you illegally, someone calls in an anonymous tip and you are arrested with the contraband they already know you have.
So while the constant tracking is illegal and can't be entered into court records, they will still do it. If you haven't noticed, police departments across the country are acting more like the DOD everyday. They classify things as secret and inaccessible to FOIA requests. When parts of the machinery get close to disclosure, the Feds come in and swoop it away, like what happened recently with the cell tracking device usage records.
Re:FP? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805/ [reuters.com]
U.S. directs agents to cover up program used to investigate Americans
Re: (Score:3)
No they can't. Google fruit of the poisonous tree.
Google "Prove it".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:FP? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: FP? (Score:3, Interesting)
What is more misleading is everyone's misunderstanding of the federal circuit courts; their rulings only apply to the states within the circuit. It really should say:
"The government can no longer track your cellphone without a warrant--in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama"
Re: (Score:1)
Precisely. After all, the NSA's systems are too complex to obey the law. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re:FP? (Score:4, Informative)
No, this just means that if they catch anything on you when they're monitoring everything you do, then they need to:
a) Get a retroactive warrant, which the FISA Court will happily provide them with no questions asked, or
b) Trump up some fake charges and detain you indefinitely, or
c) Fuck it, the first two are too hard, just send in a drone strike.
Re: (Score:3)
> b) Trump up some fake charges and detain you indefinitely, or
> c) Fuck it, the first two are too hard, just send in a drone strike.
Why is it too hard? If they can detain you indefinitely without trial then it doesn't matter what the actual charges are since the court is where they get evaluated. It is an expression that is never evaluated. Its the if clause after the return statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Right because they really care about what amounts to pocket change. Never mind that they like to "create jobs". The cost of incarcerating....er I mean "detaining" you the rest of your life will cost them less than buying a single plane that they have no intention to ever fly, and they have fields FULL of those.
Re:FP? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, it means they'll need to do more "parallel" construction to hide the actual source of this, and further undermine the concept of the justice system where you get to see the evidence against you.
They will just have to be more creative in how they go about these things, so that nobody knows they're doing the illegal stuff.
They'll keep doing it. (Score:4, Informative)
The court declared that it's a violation of your fourth amendment rights if they present warrentless cellphone location data in court. Apparently the fourth amendment is just fine with them collecting that data so long as they don't use it in court, because using information in court is what a search is all about.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is now that there's an explicit ruling, anyone doing so can't cry about the lack of clarity. Someone would have to take the fall. Sure, cops violate personal residences without warrants all the time and probably even listen in on phone calls, but that evidence is inadmissible and grounds for getting a case thrown out and convictions overturned. I'm not naive enough to expect this ruling to be followed absolutely, but anyone who violates it knows that either they or a lackey is going down.
That doesn't mean (Score:1)
That doesn't mean they're going to stop tracking people, they just won't be able to use the data in court.
RN
That doesn't mean (Score:5, Informative)
They actually have a name for it now, "Parallel Construction". Its where they use illegal evidence to locate a suspect/evidence, then they use some excuse (traffic stop, low level crime, etc) to search the suspect, and then lie/"forget" about where the initial information came from. An example is using illegal phone, email or internet taps to find a suspected drug runner, then pulling over that person when they're out driving to search their car for any evidence.
Holding My Applause (Score:1)
We'll see what the Supreme Court has to say on the matter once it gets to them.
The US Government can overrule anything (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because an appeal court judge rules that the government can not do something it doesn't mean that the government will oblige to that ruling
The Obama administration is no longer bound by any law, nor the Constitution of the United States - they can overstep anything and overrule anything
They can lie to the congress and get away with it
They can set terrorists free without having to consult the congress, or the courts
The Obama administration does not care about any judge / court / law, because to them, they are ABOVE IT ALL !
Re:The US Government can overrule anything (Score:5, Insightful)
You keep saying Obama administration. It's not one president's or even one person's doing. It's a collective effort of many people across many administrations and congresses.
Re: (Score:1)
But when Obama came into office, government institutions that had gone rogue and off practices allowed by the U.S. constitution had to fear that a constitutional scholar would rein them in.
So they were divided and fearful.
Now they are united and reckless.
It's similar to the transition from the Weimar Republic to the Third Reich. There were conflicting interests while president Hindenburg was still alive and more than one force in power. When there was only one and gave the goahead, all the bad guys united
Re:The US Government can overrule anything (Score:4, Insightful)
You keep saying Obama administration. It's not one president's or even one person's doing. It's a collective effort of many people across many administrations and congresses.
While you're technically right, it would only take 1 sitting president to stop it.
Coincidentally, we currently only have 1 sitting president.
So, when is he going to stop it?
Re: (Score:2)
When it's to his benefit.
Given the intransigence of the Congress that will be uh... when the next President is sworn in.
Re: (Score:2)
A President cannot control what everyone in the Executive Branch does. A public statement could change military operation, since he in CiC. But he is not going to tell the FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS, EPA,or any other group what they can't do, unless they tend to agree already.
One person cannot change how the branch operates. They have their own mandates and charter and whatnot to determine what they do, but laws restrict how they do it.
Method is determined by a legal opinion stating something is legal, and Presiden
Re: (Score:2)
--
JimFive
Re: (Score:2)
You basically said "you are right, but here are some weasel words".
I do realize that the President is Chief Executive, but bound by the powers granted him. He is bound Constitutionally by this oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
If by "faithfully" you mean that anything he asks of the Executive branch is automatically okay, a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
The OP was lying through his teeth. Of course, you and he are probably so sucked up into the wacko Fox News alternate universe that all of that goes right over your heads.
ORLY?
When are the statutory-mandated Obamacare mandates going into effect?
The President is also required by law to give 30 days notice before releasing someone from Gitmo. That Rush Limbaugh dittohead and right-wing whacko Dianne Feinstein says that didn't happen [nationaljournal.com]. (Hint for your addled brain: characterizing Feinstein as a "dittohead" and "whacko" is called "sarcasm".)
The IRS illegally sent private tax information [politico.com] on Tea Party non-profit groups to the FBI prior to the 2010 elections.
Obama is also refusing
The court only got it halfway right (Score:1)
It should also be illegal for the government to COLLECT the metadata without a warrant, nor should they require providers to store such data for later retrieval.
Legal question (Score:3)
IANAL by a very long shot, so let me ask a bunch of others who think they are ;)
If someone charged with a crime is eventually convicted on appeal, even when the law was unclear to start out with, that person is treated as though he should have always been able to anticipate the court's eventual decision.
Does that logic not apply here as well? Can't everyone who was once convicted in trials where this kind of evidence was used, appeal their conviction now?
Re:Legal question (Score:5, Informative)
For example, the cops generally need a warrant to enter your house to search for drugs unless an owner grants permission to the search. If you're staying over at my house while I'm away, the cops ask you for permission to search the place thinking it is your house, and you say yes, anything they find is admissible because they had a good faith belief they were conducting a legal search.
Re: (Score:1)
"The obtaining of that data without a warrant is a Fourth Amendment violation."
But it doesn't sound like that affected the case at all.
This has to be the crappiest precedent ever. IANAL
Re: (Score:2)
But doesn't that lead to a violation of due process, which in turn would invalidate any undesirable (to the defendant) verdict?
Re: (Score:2)
The counterargument against excluding evidence is: you committed a crime; this evidence shows it. Why should you get off just because the police did something wrong? That didn't magically make
Re: (Score:2)
If you're staying over at my house while I'm away, the cops ask you for permission to search the place thinking it is your house, and you say yes, anything they find is admissible because they had a good faith belief they were conducting a legal search.
A while back, I left my house and accidentally left my overhead garage door open. The door that leads from my garage to my house is usually unlocked, and it was that day. When I didn't return for a couple hours, my neighbor across the street grew concerned an
Re: (Score:2)
knowing the crime rate in my area, I would prefer to accept the risk of criminal intrusion than the violation of privacy.
The police weren't interested in "criminal intrusion", they were doing what is called a welfare check. Your neighbor saw something odd, something you'd never do normally, and called the cops to come check on you.
There are stories every so often of a reclusive person being found dead, one I recall was after six months, in their house. They die and nobody notices that there isn't any activity. You could have opened the door, gone back inside to get something you forgot, and then had a stroke.
Suppose a person in such a situation posted a sign on the door from the garage to the house that said, "Notice By Owner: I do not consent to any searches of these premises for any reason."
Exigent circu
Re: (Score:2)
The police weren't interested in "criminal intrusion", they were doing what is called a welfare check.
No they weren't. I talked to my neighbor, I know what she said to the police, and I recounted my story correctly. She is a LEO also, so she knows exactly what she said to them, and exactly what their interpretation was.
Why is it an issue that your neighbors care enough about you to call the cops when they see something highly unusual taking place and want someone to check on your welfare?
It isn't. That's wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're staying over at my house while I'm away, the cops ask you for permission to search the place thinking it is your house, and you say yes, anything they find is admissible because they had a good faith belief they were conducting a legal search.
[Citation Needed]
Someone who is not "in control" of the property can not legally consent to a search of the premises.
Minors cannot give consent. A roomate can only consent to a search of common areas, but not your space(s).
If you refuse to consent, the police can not get consent from someone else.
See: FERNANDEZ v. CALIFORNIA
Anything illegal belonging to you will be suppressed.
On the other hand, anything that belongs to the guest is fair game, since they consented.
The only thing the police gain from their go
Re: (Score:2)
In any event, my hypothetical was more akin to Illinois v. Rodriguez, where the Court held that as long as the police had a reasonable be
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
By the way, I just glanced at the opinion and the stuff I say above applies to THIS case. Despite ruling it a fourth amendment violation the court let the conviction stand precisely because the police had a good faith belief they were not violating the fourth amendment.
I can understand why ignorance of the law might save them from judicially imposed sanctions in past and present cases. But good faith does nothing to make the past use of such evidence legal, does it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When it comes to the cops, ignorance of the law is an excuse.
Re:Legal question (Score:4, Insightful)
The norm.
How many police departments have had to remind their officers that they do not have the legal authority to delete images off your cell phone, or that filming them isn't illegal?
Increasingly, police believe the law is whatever they say it means. And they will abuse the law to make sure that's the case.
Because, when you tell them they aren't allowed to delete the images off your phone and you protest, they will slap you with resisting arrest -- despite the fact that you weren't being arrested, nor were you breaking the law, they were.
Stingrays? (Score:3)
Yes, they can (Score:1)
They may no longer be allowed to, but they can, and they will.
LOL (Score:2)
"Israel no longer allowed to illegally occupy parts of Palestine". Yep, they'll start rolling out later today, because goverments always abide by the law.
This democracy stuff is great, isn't it? Things are really different now to when rich people did whatever the hell they wanted, weren't above the law etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Please moderate parent up up UP. He hit the nail right on the head.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:not in TFA but still very relevant (Score:4, Informative)
Poor baby. I feel so sorry for him. Not.
Davis was convicted of participating in a string of armed robberies in the Miami area in 2010. His accomplices testified against him, saying he carried a gun during their crimes and discharged it at a dog that chased them after one of their burglaries.
On Feb. 9 of this year he was convicted of committing seven armed robberies at fast-food restaurants, a Walgreens pharmacy and other commercial establishments in the Miami area from August to October of 2010.
So essentially, he decided to carry a deadly weapon, and stick said weapon in the face of some teenage cashier at Wendy's, so he could make off with the <$100 that was in the drawer at the time. And we're supposed to feel sorry for him? Here's two hints:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seven different armed robberies justifies the length of the sentence. That's seven separate violent acts, seven chances for some innocent working stiff to get shot over a lousy $100, if not less than that.
Just how many times do you think a person should get to stick a firearm in someone's face before they go away forever?
Re: (Score:1)
No, I don't think that someone should stay in prison forever just because they were idiots at some point in their life. If they do it again and again after getting out of prison, you may have a point, but people do change, and I don't think they should stay in prison forever just because they committed a series of crimes at a point in their life where they may just be a screw up. Put them in prison and attempt to rehabilitate them (Which is what our 'justice' system should focus on to begin with.).
The fact
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that someone should stay in prison forever just because they were idiots at some point in their life.
Sticking a firearm in someone's face on seven different occasions is a bit more serious than being an idiot at "some point" in your life. Do you have any comprehension of the fact that we're talking about someone who threatened to kill people if he didn't get what he wanted? And that he did it on at least seven different occasions? This isn't some stupid kid that took the neighbors car for a joyride. This is a violent sociopath who needs to be removed from society and put into a cage where he can't do a
Re: (Score:1)
Sticking a firearm in someone's face on seven different occasions is a bit more serious than being an idiot at "some point" in your life.
That depends on how you define "idiot."
But that's irrelevant, because we shouldn't be Tough On Crime to begin with; we should be focusing on rehabilitation, regardless of whether they robbed, murdered, or raped people. If they're rehabilitated, or they're strongly believed to be, they should get out (unless they've proven that they can't be and are able to fool everyone). Static sentencing like this is just moronic/
This is a violent sociopath who needs to be removed from society and put into a cage where he can't do any further damage.
Not everyone who commits violent crimes is necessarily a sociopath, though it's certainly con
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any evidence that he doesn't or won't feel guilty, or that he's incapable of it? Quite a subjective matter, here.
The evidence that he doesn't feel guilty is that he kept on doing it.
Look, I agree that we don't know whether this guy's a sociopath, but we do know he is a repeat violent offender.
I don't really have a good notion of what to do with people like this. Honestly. I kind of suspect that prison is ineffective as a deterrent beyond a relatively short time -- almost nothing is going to be worth 10 years, for example. Clearly this guy wasn't deterred, though he might not have believed he'd be imprisoned for lif
Re: (Score:2)
The number of occasions doesn't prevent it from just being a highly dangerous idiot phase.
Re: (Score:2)
What??? You really think 20 years or so for an armed robbery is too much??? For an intractable repeat offender???
Retitle: 'The US government...' (Score:3)
This will only be true for a short time (Score:2, Troll)
A Small Victory (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
FISA is strictly a federal warrant court. Local police and prosecutions don't use it. This ruling applies principally to local police conduct and evidence, secondarily to federal police conduct and evidence.
Yes, the FBI could still rely on FISA's rubber stamp. But county mounties can't. And it's the sheer number of the latter which pose the greater threat.
Re: (Score:2)
The tracking is done by Federal agencies [slashdot.org] on behalf of local law enforcement. In practice, the Federal agency 'deputizes' the local LE official doing the actual work. So they are covered by FISA, the Patriot Act and other federal law.
Re: (Score:3)
Just can't use it in court (Score:3)
Correction (Score:4, Insightful)
"The Government Can No Longer Track Your Cell Phone Without a Warrant"
The headline is slightly inaccurate. It should read:
"The Government Can No Longer Legally Track Your Cell Phone Without a Warrant"
But since history demonstrates conclusively that the government couldn't care less about staying within the law, that makes very little difference. It most certainly can track your cell phone without a warrant, it most probably does so, and you would be most unwise to assume it isn't doing so.
parallel construction already "solves" this (Score:3)
Secret courts, broad secret warrents (Score:2)
It's just not admissable evidence now... (Score:4, Interesting)
Not Really... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can turn off the ability to locate (or at least get a general idea of the location) your cell via triangulation? WOW!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A) Shield your phone.
B) Leave your phone at home.
C) Used a hacked phone.
etc....
Re: (Score:2)
Courts=Irrelevant (Score:3)
Now, the question is: What should we use as chemo to cure this cancer?
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't do me any good. (Score:2)
There's no "the Government" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Just discussing a warrant can get the voltage applied to your private parts cranked up in some jurisdictions.
Correction (Score:2)
The US government can no longer use the surveillance from tracking your phone in court without a warrant.
Their still going to track you.
Slashdot has gone full 'tard (Score:2)
It's overrun with ACs high-fiving each other. The character of this website is gone now. I don't know what happened or exactly when it happened, but this isn't the same place anymore. I've been a poster for going on 15 years and I found myself leaving for a bit a few weeks ago. I think I might be done for good now. Really sad to see what happened here. I just wish I knew where everyone else went...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Um, no. It's a Federal Court and sets precedence, that is unless overruled in the future by another Federal Court, that is binding in other cases similar to this one. As another poster pointed out it will probably make its way to the Supreme Court and could change from there. In the meantime this applies to the whole country.
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:5, Informative)
Well no, not exactly. I didn't word it very well but when I said "overruled by another Federal Court" I meant that another circuit can decide differently. And sometimes they do; but they need to provide a new decision and explain why their interpretation is more correct than what they are overriding. And overriding previous precedence isn't something other Federal circuits do lightly so unless they are willing to do so this is binding on future cases similar to this one.
It's only once one circuit disagrees that this needs to be appealed upwards, until than all Federal Circuits will look to this decision when making similar decisions.
But, hey, I'm just interested in civics, IANAL, so if I'm just splitting hairs here, my apologies.
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough, thanks for the clarification...
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:4, Informative)
To be precise, this ruling established a binding precedent in the 11th circuit and a persuasive precedent elsewhere in the country, correct?
My understanding is that given a binding precedent a circuit judge must explain why the precedent does not apply to the facts in order to rule contrary, and that given a persuasive precedent the judge merely needs to explain (in some detail) why the precedent is in error. Is that right?
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that this is a split from the 5th Circuit who ruled warrants are not required for this data because 3rd party doctrine. It can''t be a search of your private information because it isn't your information, it is Verizon's or AT&T or Sprint. It is about you, but it isn't yours.
Thereby increasing the likelihood that this will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court
It may be time for the Supreme Court to address this issue directly. But they ruled just a few years ago that pager records d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're not splitting hairs; these things matter to the courts. The terms you're looking for here are:
* Precedent -- an older court decision that can be cited for similar logic or analogy (doesn't mean courts have to follow it)
* Binding - a decision the court must follow
* Persuasive - a decision the court can follow
* Distinguish - finding a conceptual difference between the case at hand, and an older precedent. Possibly the judges want to write new law, or possibly they just don't want to follow binding pre
Re: (Score:2)
No because the Constitution limits the GOVERNMENT (Score:2)
The fourth amendment, and the whole Constitution, specifies what the GOVERNMENT may and may not do. It doesn't say anything about whether or not you carry a tracking device that discloses your location to AT&T, or what AT&T may do. Other laws cover those topics. Since the fourth is a restriction on the government, the relevant fact is that the government obtained the information.