Re-Writing paper 2: Cellphone Privacy
United States v. Jones case analyses the concerning warrantless GPS Installation and tracking under the fourth amendment. In this case, The FBI installed a GPS tracking device on Antoine Jones's car without a warrant and tracked his movements for a month. The FBI found out that Jones's was conspiring to distribute cocaine. The court decided that the warrantless GPS tracking was warrantless and violated the Fourth Amendment. Courts ask whether the investigated person had an expectation of privacy and whether society would view those expectations as reasonable to determine whether the government action constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. (EPIC). After further analysis of the situation, the court found that Jones's actions were not actually exposed to the public, then concluded that Jones had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements and that the tracking device constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment (the United States v. Jones).
In another cellphone privacy case, Riley v. California speaks on the legitimacy concerning the concerning the Constitutionality of a warrantless cell phone search incident to arrest. The Court also emphasized that "the fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Police must get a warrant before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple." (EPIC). However, in this case, emphasizes on the Fourth Amendment privacy issue on whether officers can search a suspect's cell without a warrant during an arrest. The court ruled "that a police can search the contents of a phone without any warrant or probable upon an arrest and held that the Fourth Amendment "search-incident-to-arrest" doctrine permits the police to conduct a full exploratory search of a cell phone whether the phone is found near the suspect at the time of arrest" (EPIC).
While the two cases above is easily relatable to Carpenter v United States, events in which they occurred are quite different and that is mostly because a third party was involved. In this situation, the government obtained the Defendant's location data under the Stored Communications Act, which required phone companies to disclose certain historical call records when the government provides "specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe" that records at issue " are relevant and material at an ongoing criminal investigation." Cell phone location data contains "historical location data showing prior connections to cell phone towers, real-time location data showing current connections to cell phone towers and real-time location data based on the handset's GPS signal" (EPIC). The court ruled that the government's efforts to obtain the defendants' location data did not constitute a "search" under the Fourth Amendment (EPIC). The Sixth Circuit found that the wireless carriers collection of data and the way of the government obtained those records were not a Fourth Amendment search, which only showed the movements of the defendant. Hence, the defendant has no expectations of privacy in the location data.
U.S. Constitution dictates that under the fourth amendment, "the right of 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" (Law Cornell). In a digital age, the third-party doctrine is important to technological surveillance in a modern age. The doctrine is needed to maintain the essential balance on which Fourth Amendment law has been built and on which it evolves in response to new technology. A study by AT&T research found "that a vast majority of social networking sites shared consumer's information with third parties in a way that would allow third parties to associate online activities with actual identities. The researchers concluded that the combination of location information, unique identifiers of devices, and traditional leakage of PII all conspire against protection of a user's privacy." (EPIC) Consumer and its location privacy is an issue as the cell phone services can used cell data to track individuals' movements and to reveal sensitive and private details of their lives. However, under the Stored Communications Act, which requires phone companies to disclose certain historical call records when the government provides "specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe" that records at issue " are relevant and material at an ongoing criminal investigation." Based on those grounds, if I would rule Mr. Carpenter guilty.
One can argue in the defense of Mr. Carpenter that the length of the investigation could pose a problem and could have exposed sensitive and private information about the defendant. As such, his right to privacy could be undermined through the investigation. However, the pieces of evidence listed above demonstrate that government and the cell phone company did not commit a "search" under the fourth amendment. The defendant's contact reveals that the company would evaluate his data usage for improvement and under the Stored Communications Act, cell phone service is acquired to hand in those records, as long as they do not contain personal information, which was not the case. Moreover, the police did not track his activities outside of the suspected area, the location where the robbery took place. Concurrently, police receipt of several months' worth of historical cell-site records, which indicated which cell towers Carpenter's cell phone connected with white it was in use was constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. I believe that police did not have to obtain a warrant for those records because they were following the law writing under the Stored Communications Act. Plus, defendants' partner in crime revealed his identity to the authorities and which made the search a probable cause. Therefore, the defendant is no expectation of privacy and society would view that expectations were not reasonable to determine the government action as a search under the Fourth Amendment.
In the light of United States v. Jones, in which, a jury found the defendant not guilty on all charges. A jury also ruled that the Supreme Court specifically stated in a 1983 case regarding the use of a beeper to track a suspect that the decision could not be used to justify a 25- hour surveillance without a warrant. In this light, one can also argue that Mr. Carpenter's investigation lasted for months, as such a warrant was needed. Yet, Justice Samuel A. Alito made a case as she declared that "the warrantless search exception following an arrest exists for the sole or primary purposes of protecting officer safety and preserving evidence" (Carpenter v United States). I believe that Mr. Jones was physically and continuously monitored through the investigation, which could very well reveal his day-to-day activities, whereas Mr. Carpenter gave consent at the moment he signed his cell contact.
In United States V. Jones, Justice Sonia claimed "the government had obtained information by usurping Jones' property and by invading his privacy and the Fourth Amendment was not only concerned with trespasses onto a property. She reasoned that the Fourth Amendment search occurs whenever the government violated a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable". In short, a valid search warrant must be granted for the government to monitor a suspect, as the defendant also has a right that is constitutionally protected by the fourth. Hence, a long operation such as Carpenter's case, demand legal measures and application, which were equally undermined which defies the constitution dictating that the fourth amendment originally enforced the notion that each man's home is his castle, secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government. Unlike the United States v. Jones, the government obtained Carpenter's cell location through a third-party, as such they did not directly violate his right and privacy. One can also argue that the government had enough probable reason to allow the phone services to disclose such private information.
In conclusion, the fourth amendment makes certain that "the right of 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". With regard to the nature of the data, which only provides cell tower signal, I believe that cell sites records are sufficient as it merely provides a specific location of the user. As such, information's collected do not reveal sensitive personal information, does not violate the defendant's right to privacy and the defendant did not suffer a Fourth Amendment violation.