On June 22, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Carpenter v. U.S. that a warrant is needed to access cell-tower records. In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Government conducts a “search” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment when it accesses an individual’s historical cell-site location information (“CLSI”) which provides a “comprehensive chronicle of the user’s past movements.”
The case arose after police officers arrested four suspects in a series of robberies in Michigan and Ohio. One of the suspects identified 15 accomplices who had participated in the crimes and gave the FBI their cell phone numbers.
After obtaining this information, the prosecutors requested a court order under the Stored Communications Act to obtain cell phone records for the suspects. To obtain such an order, the Government must demonstrate that there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that the records requested “are relevant and material to an ongoing investigation.” Through this order, “the Government obtained 12,898 location points cataloging Carpenter’s movements” over a 127-day span.
One of the suspects was charged with six counts of robbery and six counts of carrying a firearm during a federal crime of violence. The suspect sought to suppress the cell-site data obtained by the Government, arguing that the “Government’s seizure of the records violated the Fourth Amendment because they had been obtained without a warrant supported by probable cause.”
Attorneys for the government argued that the information was subject to the “third-party” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. This doctrine states that individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to information shared with third-parties (e.g. cellphone location data shared with cell phone carriers). The lack of expectation of privacy means that the Government is not required to obtain a warrant before getting access to that information.
The Court declined to extend the third-party doctrine to cell-site location information. The Court held that “an individual maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements as captured through CSLI.” Thus, the acquisition of an individual’s CSLI is a “search” under the Fourth Amendment and the Government must obtain a warrant supported by probable cause before obtaining such records.
Attorneys at FDAR defend government entities and law enforcement regarding civil rights and Constitutional claims. Contact Daniel Downey (ddowney@fisheldowney.com) or (mwilliamson@fisheldowney.com) for more information.