logo

No Reasonable Expectation to Privacy for Cell Phone Data

image
Created: 09 August, 2013
Updated: 14 October, 2022
3 min read

new laws on privacy anthonyturducken / Flickr

Last week, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a magistrate judge's 2010 ruling that made cell phone data constitutionally protected from government intrusion under the Fourth Amendment. Cell phone data refers to calls, texts, emails, voicemails, photographs, Internet usage, and GPS tracking systems.

Whenever a call is made from a cellular device, the carrier knows where the call is coming from. It needs to know this information in order to relay the signal above the clouds. These signals are all logged and can be compiled for investigation.

The new interpretation of the law defines cell phone data as owned by the provider, rather than the owner of the cell phone. Cellular data can now be thought of as a "business record."

Individual cell phone subscribers now have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" with their usage, as a search warrant is no longer required in order for authorities to seek out this information.

The Fourth Amendment protects against unlawful search and seizure without probable cause and a search warrant. By definition, then, this new federal ruling exempts cell phone usage and data from probable cause standards and limits the clearance required to breach cellular information.

The issue revolves around the definition of private information. The courts are tasked with determining whether a third party (in this case, a cell phone provider) is constitutionally protected of infiltration by way of a search warrant.

The Chicago Sun-Times recently published an article advocating that Fourth Amendment protection laws be applied to cell phone data in Illinois.

Other states have had pre-existing cell phone data laws, Montana being the very first to pass legislation in this trend. The bill expressly states that a search warrant must be obtained in order to seek information on an "electronic device," with the following exceptions:

IVP Existence Banner

" (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a government entity may not obtain the location information of an electronic device without a search warrant issued by a duly authorized court.(2) A government entity may obtain location information of an electronic device under any of the following circumstances:(a) the device is reported stolen by the owner;(b) in order to respond to the user's call for emergency services;(c) with the informed, affirmative consent of the owner or user of the electronic device; or(d) there exists a possible life-threatening situation.(3) Any evidence obtained in violation of this section is not admissible in a civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding and may not be used in an affidavit of probable cause in an effort to obtain a search warrant.(4) A violation of this section will result in a civil fine not to exceed $50."

The debate has sprung up among lawmakers in Maine as well, another state with existing cell phone data laws. State law includes the requirement that authorities notify the person of interest within 3 days of tracking. However, the authorities can prove the need for secrecy, and can circumvent the 3-day period.

In California, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a bill that would specifically protect residents from cell phone surveillance.

Meanwhile, First Circuit Chief Judge Sandra Lynch has expressed taking the case directly to the Supreme Court in order to facilitate a clear, broad-reaching precedent for cell phone data laws. With courts in disagreement over the overrule, this may be the quickest route to a solution.

Latest articles

votes
Wyoming Purges Nearly 30% of Its Voters from Registration Rolls
It is not uncommon for a state to clean out its voter rolls every couple of years -- especially to r...
27 March, 2024
-
1 min read
ballot box
The Next Big Win in Better Election Reform Could Come Where Voters Least Expect
Idaho isn't a state that gets much attention when people talk about politics in the US. However, this could change in 2024 if Idahoans for Open Primaries and their allies are successful with their proposed initiative....
21 March, 2024
-
3 min read
Courts
Why Do We Accept Partisanship in Judicial Elections?
The AP headline reads, "Ohio primary: Open seat on state supreme court could flip partisan control." This immediately should raise a red flag for voters, and not because of who may benefit but over a question too often ignored....
19 March, 2024
-
9 min read
Nick Troiano
Virtual Discussion: The Primary Solution with Unite America's Nick Troiano
In the latest virtual discussion from Open Primaries, the group's president, John Opdycke, sat down ...
19 March, 2024
-
1 min read
Sinema
Sinema's Exit Could Be Bad News for Democrats -- Here's Why
To many, the 2024 presidential primary has been like the movie Titanic - overly long and ending in a disaster we all saw coming from the start. After months of campaigning and five televised primary debates, Americans are now faced with a rematch between two candidates polling shows a majority of them didn’t want....
19 March, 2024
-
7 min read