New Jersey Supreme Court Restricts Police Searches of Phone Data

An anonymous reader sends this quote from the NY Times: "Staking out new ground in the noisy debate about technology and privacy in law enforcement, the New Jersey Supreme Court on Thursday ordered that the police will now have to get a search warrant before obtaining tracking information from cellphone providers. The ruling (PDF) puts the state at the forefront of efforts to define the boundaries around a law enforcement practice that a national survey last year showed was routine, and typically done without court oversight or public awareness. With lower courts divided on the use of cellphone tracking data, legal experts say, the issue is likely to end up before the United States Supreme Court. The New Jersey decision also underscores the extent of the battles over government intrusion into personal data in a quickly advancing digital age, from small town police departments to the National Security Agency's surveillance of e-mail and cellphone conversations."

Comments

I see what you did there.

[girlintraining]

You pull out an NSA. We pull out a Supreme Court ruling. THAT's the New Jersey way. You gotta problem with that buddy?

Re:I see what you did there.

[schneidafunk]

This ruling is for the police, not the NSA.

Re:I see what you did there.

[MysteriousPreacher]

This ruling is for the police, not the NSA.

Yeah, and an important step. What we saw in the UK, regarding these "anti-terrorist" data gathering exercises was local police and government using them at the drop of a hat. At least removing them from the equation fixes part of the problem, and hopefully prevents New Jersey police from tackling car insurance cases by using the same tools applied to international terrorists.

Re:I see what you did there.

[plover]

A New Jersey Supreme Court ruling probably won't have much effect on the NSA.

No, but it might have a more direct and beneficial effect on New Jersey citizens. So far, the NSA isn't in the habit of pounding down doors at dark o'clock themselves, and they have been leaving the police work of tracking down criminals to the local police forces. This just ensures the police are following the rules.

The other good thing about this is that any police work done that follows procedures and obtains these warrants will not be challenged in court.

Re:I see what you did there.

[girlintraining]

At least removing them from the equation fixes part of the problem, and hopefully prevents New Jersey police from tackling car insurance cases by using the same tools applied to international terrorists.

This is the right attitude. New Jersey is telling the Federal government that there are some lines you just don't cross. They can't stop them from expanding their reach and handing out privacy-invading laws and tools... but they can say no. It's called judicial restraint, and it's neither politically fashionable nor popular right now... which makes it all the more remarkable when it happens.

Re:It does need an exception

[MysteriousPreacher]

There has to obviously be an exception to the rule to allow for exigent circumstances, like when someone is kidnapped or they are trying to locate an active shooter.

Definitely - this comes down to probable cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

It should be very specific and justified, which is something that needs to be permissible. What needs to go away are the fishing expeditions and general riffling through personal data for persons where there is no probable cause. Probable cause shouldn't even require a warrant if there's an immediate threat. However it should only apply when there are criminal charges in mind, and a suspect. i.e. tracking a kidnap victims cellphone is demonstrably different to pulling phone location for people without reasonable grounds to consider criminal charges against these particular people.

Privacy expectations aside, it's not too difficult to build up a solid list of criteria under which it would be reasonable to pry. For one, firemen don't get charged with breaking and entering when they kick down a door to search a burning house. It's quite clear though that this doesn't mean fireman can go kick down the door of any given house without reason to suspect a fire or similar emergency within their remit.

Re:What difference does it make

[plover]

A buddy of mine has had a couple of occasions to see his criminal record. At the time, he was concerned because he had some "youthful indiscretions" that the judge ordered were to be expunged when he became an adult, and if they had come to light they probably would not have improved the situation he was in at the time.

Apparently, expunging meant taking his manila folder and sealing it shut with actual red tape that had the word "EXPUNGED" printed on it.

"Young man, this will go down on your permanent record!" - truer words were never spoken.

Re:As Carter said, currently no functioning democr

[drainbramage]

Even a blind pig can find an acorn once in a while.
Carter was on this road, he's just jealous.

Re:It does need an exception

[Hatta]

Exigent circumstances do not eliminate the need for probable cause. They only save you time standing in front of a judge. If there is no probable cause, anything you found during your search is inadmissible in court.