Slashdot Mirror
The Government Can No Longer Track Your Cell Phone Without a Warrant
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."
Doesn't mean they won't keep doing it anyway.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
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 !
Nope, it IS only binding in the Eleventh Circuit. One of the reasons cases get to the Supreme Court is because there's a circuit split; some circuits go one way, some go the other, and the SC decides which should apply to the whole country.
Not really; the exclusionary principle is based on the premise that the courts will punish law enforcement for knowingly evading their constitutional responsiblities by not letting them use whatever evidence they wrongfully obtained. Until binding precedential caselaw is established, law enforcement can be considered to not have known they were required to get a warrant before, so any evidence before that point would not be excluded.
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.
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.
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.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Now they just need to get a FISA warrant rubber-stamped or use parallel construction to make sure that the evidence is admissable.
Well IAAL (in the 11th circuit even) so I tend to get a little OCD about legal terms. You're right it has precedential value in other circuits and any court addressing the issue will take this case seriously, though circuits frequently do just explicitly disagree with other circuits so I'd be more comfortable once this gets to the Supreme Court.
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:
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"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.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
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?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
They can still virtually follow you, build a case, use the information to connect you to others, use it to indicate where to look for other evidence, etc. The location data just can't be admitted as "evidence", doesn't mean they can't and won't continue to use the information otherwise. Small incremental progress, but definitely not a full block on use of the data.
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.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
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 precedent.
The courts, particularly at the federal appeals level always provide a "new decision", even if it's marked as "unpublished". If the courts render a decision they are required to render that decision "on the record". Trust you me, however, if appeals courts see it differently than another circuit they say so and decide differently. There are even frequent ping-pong matches between the supreme court and circuit courts. SCOTUS says Y is wrong, do X. The appeals court says we just found out about J, so we're still doing Y. And the cycle begins anew. Occasionally, circut courts go so far as to say "no thank you" to a supreme court decision.
On the other hand, judges also worry about peer opinion, like the rest of us. Typically, they don't enjoy being overruled. So as points of law become more settled it's unlikely they deviate. Adding to the confusion, sometimes SCOTUS/the circuit courts make decisions and realize they are just unworkable in practice. Then without "overruling" they adjust the standards/factors courts look to when deciding if something is allowed/disallowed.
Truth is, this will take 20-30 years to see where it settles. The judicial perception of time is vastly different than our perception of time.
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.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.