U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Cellphone Search Warrant Case

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Maybe the U.S. Supreme Court just didn't want to take up this case because they didn't like the defendant. :D

Davis challenged his convictions in part on the grounds that police did not seek a warrant when they asked his cellphone provider, MetroPCS Communications Inc, for location information that linked him to the seven different crime scenes between August and October 2010. Among the businesses targeted by Davis and five co-defendants were a gas station, a Walgreens drug store and a Wendy’s restaurant.
 
What kind of thieves brings things that can be used to identify them? Might as well just hand your social security card at the place you're robbing.
 
What kind of thieves brings things that can be used to identify them? Might as well just hand your social security card at the place you're robbing.

Probably afraid to leave his cell phone someplace in case it got stolen while he was gone.
 
Nothing to do with liking or not liking the defendant, everything to do with preventing a legal precedent from being established.

The government does it all the time, they would rather kill or dismiss a case when the case could potentially set a precedent which will limit the scope of their own activities.
 
Although this guy sounds like the dictionary definition of a piece of shit human being I'm more annoyed with how probable cause isn't needed for getting customers records. A 1986 law had no clue about how the world would work today. Peoples entire lives are online and even data mined without them having a real say in the matter.

But, based on a provision of the federal Stored Communications Act, the government said it does not need probable cause to obtain customer records. Instead, the government said, prosecutors need only show there are “reasonable grounds” for the records and that they are “relevant and material” to an investigation.
Sounds to me like 'probable cause' and 'reasonable grounds' are the same exact thing but one requires a warrant and one doesn't. So in other words a sneaky legal way found to use for violating peoples rights (not needing a warrant). FFS the government sure does appear to the bigger criminals here to me. I must just be a pessimist.
 
WADR, you guys don't get it.
Law enforcement can ASK for these records all they want. And there is no reason that the ISPs/cell companies can't simply hand it over. No warrant required.
The warrant is ONLY required in order for the police to FORCE the ISPs/cell companies to provide the information via a subpoena. In fact, your contracts with those companies specifically say they can hand over your infor at the request of law enforcement.

The SCOTUS didn't take this case because it doesn't implicate the 4th amendment, and if he claimed a privacy issue, he signed it away in his service contract. This case is a non-issue, legally.
 
Modred189, although I don't like that some companies just give away customers personal information without a warrant just because law enforcement asked them nicely for it nonetheless your clarification of the case makes sense. So thanks.
 
Nothing to do with liking or not liking the defendant, everything to do with preventing a legal precedent from being established.

The government does it all the time, they would rather kill or dismiss a case when the case could potentially set a precedent which will limit the scope of their own activities.


I actually had the opposite reasoning in that there was so much evidence against the guy that he would have surely been convicted, which would have set the precidence for unwarranted monitoring.
 
Unfortunately phone companies are inclined to hand over this info without any fight. Don't like it but we get so many requests we have to throttle them and the queue can build to an hour or more. If titty want privacy you may have better luck with a burner
 
WADR, you guys don't get it.
Law enforcement can ASK for these records all they want. And there is no reason that the ISPs/cell companies can't simply hand it over. No warrant required.
The warrant is ONLY required in order for the police to FORCE the ISPs/cell companies to provide the information via a subpoena. In fact, your contracts with those companies specifically say they can hand over your infor at the request of law enforcement.

The SCOTUS didn't take this case because it doesn't implicate the 4th amendment, and if he claimed a privacy issue, he signed it away in his service contract. This case is a non-issue, legally.

I don't agree with that; From Cornell:

To have standing to claim protection under the Fourth Amendment, one must first demonstrate an expectation of privacy, which is not merely a subjective expectation in mind but an expectation that society is prepared to recognized as reasonable under the circumstances. For instance, warrantless searches of private premises are mostly prohibited unless there are justifiable exceptions; on the other hand, a warrantless seizure of abandoned property usually does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, the Fourth Amendment protection does not expand to governmental intrusion and information collection conducted upon open fields. An Expectation of privacy in an open field is not considered reasonable. However, there are some exceptions where state authorities granted protection to open fields.

I would wager a guess that society does not think the police should know where you physically are via GPS data from your cellphone.

The reason it doesn't pan out is the fourth amendment is a protection from government, not from private entities. Private entities really only face public backlash and civil suits in these instances. Odds are any instance that would get them in trouble, wouldn't be something we would be hearing about in this manner.
 
I don't agree with that; From Cornell:

To have standing to claim protection under the Fourth Amendment, one must first demonstrate an expectation of privacy, which is not merely a subjective expectation in mind but an expectation that society is prepared to recognized as reasonable under the circumstances. For instance, warrantless searches of private premises are mostly prohibited unless there are justifiable exceptions; on the other hand, a warrantless seizure of abandoned property usually does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, the Fourth Amendment protection does not expand to governmental intrusion and information collection conducted upon open fields. An Expectation of privacy in an open field is not considered reasonable. However, there are some exceptions where state authorities granted protection to open fields.

I would wager a guess that society does not think the police should know where you physically are via GPS data from your cellphone.

The reason it doesn't pan out is the fourth amendment is a protection from government, not from private entities. Private entities really only face public backlash and civil suits in these instances. Odds are any instance that would get them in trouble, wouldn't be something we would be hearing about in this manner.

But the justification is right there in your own quote from Cornell: "information collection conducted upon open fields." I'm not sure what the legal definition of an open field is, but tracking your movements on public roads, to public places of business, using publicly available satellites and cell towers, sounds pretty "open" to me. Put another way, how can you have an expectation of privacy when you aren't on private property?
 
WADR, you guys don't get it.
Law enforcement can ASK for these records all they want. And there is no reason that the ISPs/cell companies can't simply hand it over. No warrant required.
The warrant is ONLY required in order for the police to FORCE the ISPs/cell companies to provide the information via a subpoena. In fact, your contracts with those companies specifically say they can hand over your infor at the request of law enforcement.

The SCOTUS didn't take this case because it doesn't implicate the 4th amendment, and if he claimed a privacy issue, he signed it away in his service contract. This case is a non-issue, legally.
Yeah pretty much this in a nutshell. This is like data that your ISP has on your download habits and what not, there are currently no laws that say they can't hold that data, so if someone asks them and they simply go "ok sure here's the data you requested" then that's your ISP being a douche, or in this case MetroPCS just handing the information over, in anything they get egg on their face over this... well that's if the people (like me) really care that much about privacy or cheap cell coverage.

This is like anything the police does with questioning anyone else about a crime, "did you see the person in question? Where were you when you saw them at 10pm on the night in question" the person has every right to not say a word outside of a court, but police hardly need a search warrant to ask questions if the people (or companies) are willing to give over the information freely without a warrant.
 
We find ourselves at these crossroads a lot. How much information are agencies allowed to access to maintain our safety and catch criminals but also not interfere in our private lives?

When you open the data access door, then there's a huge threat that it's more of a flood gate rather than house door. No one wants to see a criminal use a technicality to get off scott free on charges. However, no one wants to have the government know all the nitty gritty details on our lives. Sure there are warrants, but those take time, and like one person said, they enter a queue.

It's a fine line for sure. Nobody trusts the government and lately, it really seems like no one should. However, it does bring up the question on how does the EU handle this? There are far more big brother ideals over there, and does that inhibit the lives of those living under them?
 
We find ourselves at these crossroads a lot. How much information are agencies allowed to access to maintain our safety and catch criminals but also not interfere in our private lives?

When you open the data access door, then there's a huge threat that it's more of a flood gate rather than house door. No one wants to see a criminal use a technicality to get off scott free on charges. However, no one wants to have the government know all the nitty gritty details on our lives. Sure there are warrants, but those take time, and like one person said, they enter a queue.

It's a fine line for sure. Nobody trusts the government and lately, it really seems like no one should. However, it does bring up the question on how does the EU handle this? There are far more big brother ideals over there, and does that inhibit the lives of those living under them?

Blackstone's Formulation is one of the tenants our legal system is based upon.

Blackstone's formulation

In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation (also known as Blackstone's ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle that:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",

...as expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.

Historically, the details of the ratio have varied, but the message that government and the courts must err on the side of innocence has remained constant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation
 
I don't agree with that; From Cornell:

To have standing to claim protection under the Fourth Amendment, one must first demonstrate an expectation of privacy, which is not merely a subjective expectation in mind but an expectation that society is prepared to recognized as reasonable under the circumstances. For instance, warrantless searches of private premises are mostly prohibited unless there are justifiable exceptions; on the other hand, a warrantless seizure of abandoned property usually does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, the Fourth Amendment protection does not expand to governmental intrusion and information collection conducted upon open fields. An Expectation of privacy in an open field is not considered reasonable. However, there are some exceptions where state authorities granted protection to open fields.

I would wager a guess that society does not think the police should know where you physically are via GPS data from your cellphone.

The reason it doesn't pan out is the fourth amendment is a protection from government, not from private entities. Private entities really only face public backlash and civil suits in these instances. Odds are any instance that would get them in trouble, wouldn't be something we would be hearing about in this manner.
You cannot have an expectation in the privacy of data that you have already signed away to be used in exactly this circumstance. That's because-
A- the police asked.
B- The cell carrier volunteered the information
C- the cell contract/service agreement contains a clause in which you consent to this kind of data release.

Therefore, the 4th amendment simply doesn't apply.
 
Bottom line: CONSENT is always a complete defense to 4th Amendment claims.
 
Back
Top