Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Florida Supreme Court: Police Can't Grab Cell Tower Data Without a Warrant

Posted by timothy on from the let's-hope-it's-catchy dept.

SternisheFan writes with an excerpt from Wired with some (state-specific, but encouraging) news about how much latitude police are given to track you based on signals like wireless transmissions. The Florida Supreme Court ruled Thursday that obtaining cell phone location data to track a person's location or movement in real time constitutes a Fourth Amendment search and therefore requires a court-ordered warrant.

The case specifically involves cell tower data for a convicted drug dealer that police obtained from a telecom without a warrant. But the way the ruling is written (.pdf), it would also cover the use of so-called "stingrays" — sophisticated technology law enforcement agencies use to locate and track people in the field without assistance from telecoms. Agencies around the country, including in Florida, have been using the technology to track suspects — sometimes without obtaining a court order, other times deliberately deceiving judges and defendants about their use of the devices to track suspects, telling judges the information came from "confidential" sources rather than disclose their use of stingrays. The new ruling would require them to obtain a warrant or stop using the devices. The American Civil Liberties Union calls the Florida ruling "a resounding defense" of the public's right to privacy.

12 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. Criminals who carry tracking devices... by NixieBunny · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Carrying a tracking device is not a good idea if you don't want to be tracked. Cellphones are basically tracking devices that also place phone calls and take photos of incriminating evidence.

    Leave your phone at home when doing naughty things - it will give you an alibi!

    --
    The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
    1. Re:Criminals who carry tracking devices... by NixieBunny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, it's reasonable to assume that your cellphone is betraying your every move, if it's on you. The cops ignore the laws anyways - we have to deal with it somehow. The bet way is to not make it easy for them, by using other ways of communicating that don't trigger the cop spying machinery.

      --
      The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
  2. Re:anonymously sourced evidence? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yep. There's never any reason to keep the source of information secret from the judge that issues the warrant.

  3. This should have been a no brainer by whistlingtony · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    I consider my phone to be "papers and effects" pretty heavily. Everyone does. That this was even a question is pretty annoying.

    1. Re:This should have been a no brainer by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree. But that has nothing directly to do with this. Your phone is not being searched, it's regularly broadcasting its identity for the world to hear as part of it's normal function - it has to so that the cell company can determine which tower is closest and route your calls accordingly. That routing information then makes it trivial to determine at roughly where your phone is at all times. The cops are then requesting that information from the phone company and/or using stingrays to track your radio broadcast directly. *Your* papers and effects are never searched, the phone company is simply transferring *their* operational logs about you to the to the police.

      The problem of course is that they are using that information as a substitute for invasive electronic tracking devices that generally would require a warrant. The courts then have to decide whether it's the technical details or the functional results that are more significant, and I think they made the right call.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:This should have been a no brainer by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree. But that has nothing directly to do with this.

      Wrong. The spirit of the constitution is very much relevant here. In today's world, you have little choice but to hand over information to at least a few companies. If the government is allowed to get any information from any company without even so much as a warrant, then no one can have any reasonable degree of privacy without making great sacrifices. That is unreasonable.

      When the fourth takes about "papers," it doesn't literally seek to protect the paper itself, but the information contained on the papers. I'd say protecting people's information is very relevant here.

    3. Re:This should have been a no brainer by tqk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Translation: "We live in a police state. Deal with it. Happy now?"

      Information is power.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  4. Re:anonymously sourced evidence? by penix1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The question should be what is so fucking hard about getting a warrant? They are handed out like candy these days so what is so hard about getting one?

    --
    This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
  5. Re:This is horrible! by davester666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, they already are doing it, as there is nobody providing oversight that will actually stop them from doing it in any meaningful way. They just want the laws changed so they don't take a PR hit every couple of weeks from these practices being revealed to the public.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  6. Re:Yeah yeah by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you can catch Florida law enforcement doing it now, you would have a really good case for a lawsuit.

    Yeah, but would anyone actually be punished? Merely forcing the taxpayers to hand over money isn't as good as imprisoning the ones responsible for violating people's liberties.

  7. Re:Yeah yeah by dcollins117 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a bonus, putting these criminals in jail will also most likely stop all this complaining about a prisoner shortage.

    I have a better idea. Why don't we put police who routinely break the law by conducting warrantless searches in the vacant jail cells. Two birds, one stone.

  8. Re:anonymously sourced evidence? by penix1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, it truly is easy if there is probable cause.

    This is from: http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

    Probable cause is not equal to absolute certainty. That is, a police officer does not have to be absolutely certain that criminal activity is taking place to perform a search or make an arrest. Probable cause can exist even when there is some doubt as to the person's guilt. Courts take care to review the actions of police in the context of everyday life, Balancing the interests of law enforcement against the interests of personal liberty in determining whether probable cause existed for a search or arrest.

    If they are not planning to arrest someone, then why the warrantless search? The point is, if the police can articulate their suspicions clearly enough with a modicum of evidence, they get the warrant.

    --
    This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.