Orlando Criminal Lawyer
call for a free
consultation

U.S. Supreme Court Strengthens Digital Privacy & Warrant Requirement for Cell Phone Data

CellAccident

On June 22, the U.S. Supreme Court made a monumental decision strengthening digital privacy and upholding Fourth Amendment protections in the Carpenter v. United States decision, ultimately finding that the government first needs to obtain a warrant in order to access your cell site location.

This decision will not only impact circumstances involving private companies turning over cell phone data to the police all over the country, but could also have implications for other information held by third parties; information that law enforcement often seeks, such as bank records, browsing data, emails, smart-home appliances, text messages, and information based on technology that has not yet been invented. It also eliminates the ability for government parties such as law enforcement to get around the Fourth Amendment’s privacy protections by simply claiming that something involves technology and thus doesn’t qualify for said protections.

The Third Party Doctrine, Cell Site Location, and What Is Private

The government’s argument centered on a legal principle known as “the third-party doctrine,” as linked to two cases from 1976 and 1979, whereby the Court found that law enforcement does not need to first obtain warrants to access bank or call records because the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit obtaining information revealed to third parties.

However, in this case, the Court found that cell site location information fell into a qualitatively different category, effectively allowing law enforcement to paint a complete picture of each citizen’s movements. The decision is also in keeping with rulings made in 2012 and 2014 that an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the government placed a GPS tracker on their car without first obtaining a warrant and police need to first obtain a warrant to search someone’s cell phone when they are under arrest.

The Impact of This Decision

Last year alone, AT&T and Verizon received close to 125,000 requests for this data, thus making this decision significant, as law enforcement will not first have to demonstrate that they have probable cause to seek each piece of information before seeking a warrant to obtain it. This private information provided by cell phones is automatically generated whenever a cell phone connects to a cell tower, and the carrier then stores this information for years.

You Still Need To Work With a Criminal Defense Attorney

In spite of this victory, it is important to note that, although the Court recognized that cell phone use is no longer effectively voluntary – but rather, necessary for modern life – the ruling does still leave the door open for police to obtain certain information without first obtaining a warrant in some circumstances.

If you have had your private information turned over to law enforcement by a third party, or otherwise had your privacy rights violated while under arrest, speak with one of our experienced Florida criminal defense attorneys at the Baez Law Firm right away to find out how we can assist you.

Resource:

supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Miami

Miami Office

40 SW 13th St, Suite 901
Miami, FL 33130
Office: 305-999-5100
Fax: 305-999-5111
Orlando

Orlando Office

23 South Osceola Avenue
Orlando, FL 32801
Office: 407-705-2626
Fax: 407-705-2625

Email Us

Fields Marked * Are required

Captcha Image

DISCLAIMER: Completing and submitting this form or otherwise merely contacting The Baez Law Firm or any individual at the firm will not establish an attorney/client relationship. Our firm cannot represent you until we determine that there would be no conflict of interest and that we are otherwise able to accept representation of your case. Please do not send any information or documents until a formal attorney/client relationship has been established through an interview with an attorney and you have been given authorization in the form of an engagement letter with The Baez Law Firm. Any information or documents sent via this form or otherwise prior to your receipt of an engagement letter will not be treated as confidences, secrets, or protected information of any nature. Submitting information regarding your potential case will not bar The Baez Law Firm from representing or continuing to represent a person or entity whose interest are adverse to your in condition with your case.

DISCLAIMER: This website contains information about The Baez Law Firm that includes testimonial statements from persons who are familiar with the firm's services. The testimonials shown are not necessarily representative of every person's experience with us. Testimonials from every client are not provided. As no two situations or persons are identical, the facts and circumstances of your situation may differ from those for which testimonials are shown. This website also includes information about some of the past results that we have obtained for our clients. Not all results are provided, and the results shown are not necessarily representative of all results obtained by us. No two situation are exactly alike; every person's situation is unique and the outcome for each person depends on the individual facts.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.
MileMark Media - Practice Growth Solutions

© 2015 - 2018 Baez Law Firm. All rights reserved.
This law firm website is managed by MileMark Media.

Contact Form Tab Contact Form Tab