U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Cellphone Search Warrant Case

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by HardOCP News, Nov 9, 2015.

  1. HardOCP News

    HardOCP News [H] News

    Messages:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    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.
     
  2. foxhound2001

    foxhound2001 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    128
    Joined:
    May 17, 2007
    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.
     
  3. Old_Way

    Old_Way Gawd

    Messages:
    665
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Probably afraid to leave his cell phone someplace in case it got stolen while he was gone.
     
  4. Lith1um

    Lith1um 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,830
    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    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.
     
  5. xJ321x

    xJ321x Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    396
    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    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.

    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.
     
  6. foxhound2001

    foxhound2001 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    128
    Joined:
    May 17, 2007

    huehuehue
     
  7. Modred189

    Modred189 I'm Smarter Than You

    Messages:
    14,420
    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    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.
     
  8. xJ321x

    xJ321x Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    396
    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    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.
     
  9. Wrecked Em

    Wrecked Em [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,728
    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004

    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.
     
  10. nilepez

    nilepez [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,311
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    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
     
  11. Weenis

    Weenis I said WEENIS, not...

    Messages:
    4,807
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    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.
     
  12. Commander Suzdal

    Commander Suzdal 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,134
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    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?
     
  13. sfsuphysics

    sfsuphysics I don't get it

    Messages:
    13,674
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    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.
     
  14. mecra

    mecra Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    173
    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    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?
     
  15. Lith1um

    Lith1um 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,830
    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Blackstone's Formulation is one of the tenants our legal system is based upon.

     
  16. sfsuphysics

    sfsuphysics I don't get it

    Messages:
    13,674
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    So 11 though is the magic number, we get that or more per 1 innocent and we're good to go.
     
  17. Modred189

    Modred189 I'm Smarter Than You

    Messages:
    14,420
    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    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.
     
  18. Modred189

    Modred189 I'm Smarter Than You

    Messages:
    14,420
    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Bottom line: CONSENT is always a complete defense to 4th Amendment claims.