Police Can Obtain Cellphone Location Records Without a Warrant

mi writes: A new ruling from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals found by a margin of 9-2 that law enforcement does not need to get a warrant to grab your cell phone's location records. The justices ruled that there is no expectation of privacy for your location when you're using a cell phone. This decision (PDF) was based on a case in which a man was convicted of robbery after months of location data was given to authorities by his cell phone carrier, MetroPCS. Police got the information using a court order, rather than a warrant, because there were less stringent requirements involved. One of the judges wrote: "We find no reason to conclude that cellphone users lack facts about the functions of cell towers or about telephone providers' recording cell tower usage."

Comments

This seems batshit crazy.

[ArylAkamov]

No expectation of privacy when using a cellphone?

This worries me. How long before no expectation of privacy when using the internet?

When using a car? (GPS in modern cars)

When do we have an expectation of privacy anymore?

Re:This seems batshit crazy.

[TWX]

But I am not broadcasting my location to third parties, I am communicating with one party in particular, the cellular carrier to which I have a business arrangement over a very short wave, using encrypted means of communication.

If I had a ham radio connected to a GPS receiver that'd be a different matter, but as a cell user I'm not broadcasting for all to hear. There are laws about that actually, there are bits of analog spectrum that it's still illegal to listen to because at one time telephone conversations happened on those frequencies in clear analog.

Re:Every cell phone is a lo-jack...

[fche]

"Your phone carrier MUST know"

Yes, but that's not the same as saying the _police_ should know.

Re:Just stupid

[meta-monkey]

I read the decision. Go read the first few pages (linked in TFS). It makes perfect sense to me.

What do you think happened here? The cops didn't just go mining some random guy's cell signal.

They already had tons of evidence against the guy. Eyewitness testimony. Camera footage of the armed robberies (someone matching his description). DNA evidence collected from the getaway car. The government presented this to a federal magistrate who said it constitutes reasonable grounds for the government to seize the phone records that are relevant and material to the case.

And the only data they got was, for the specific two month period the armed robberies were underway, this one person's call records, limited to phone number, data/time/duration, incoming or outgoing, and the cell tower location. No call contents. No text message contents. No keep-alive packets or other location tracking data when the phone was powered but not making or receiving a call. No GPS data. Just enough to say "we know the suspect was in this mile and a half radius making a phone call near the time of the robbery."

So what do you think is the problem?

Were there not reasonable grounds to authorize the order? Not enough evidence? Were the phone records not relevant to the case? Do you think too much information was seized?

I'm genuinely curious as to where you think the government overreach occurred in this case, or if you just think the government should never be able to seize or search anything for any reason.