“The government can no longer claim that just using technology like your cellphones means you’ve given up your Fourth Amendment rights,” says the ACLU. “This is huge.”
(CD) — In a decision that digital rights advocates called “a groundbreaking victory for Americans’ privacy rights,” the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday that police generally must obtain a warrant before collecting cellphone records that can be used to track a person’s movements.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which represented the petitioner, predicted the “historic” win “will have a ripple effect for privacy,” particularly as it applies to data held by third parties. As the group explained in a series of tweets, “It will help protect all sorts of digital information stored online, from emails to data from smart home appliances.”
Starting now, the government can no longer claim that just using technology like your cellphones means you've given up your Fourth Amendment rights. This is huge. #GetAWarrant pic.twitter.com/iIXvODUKpX
— ACLU (@ACLU) June 22, 2018
Nate Freed Wessler, the ACLU staff attorney who argued the case, discussed the ruling and what it could mean for future cases in a short video posted on Twitter:
— ACLU (@ACLU) June 22, 2018
Famed government whistleblower Edward Snowden tweeted the decision was a “victory for ACLU—and America.”
The Supreme Court just ruled the government's decades-old practice of warrantlessly tracking your historical movements via cellphone records (CSLI) has in many cases violated the constitutional right to privacy. Major victory for @ACLU ― and America. #GetAWarrant #Carpenter pic.twitter.com/lqm4joMysm
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) June 22, 2018
Chief Justice John Roberts—joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—wrote the majority opinion (pdf), which explained: “Cellphones perform their wide and growing variety of functions by continuously connecting to a set of radio antennas called ‘cell sites.’ Each time a phone connects to a cell site, it generates a time-stamped record known as cell-site location information (CSLI). Wireless carriers collect and store this information.”
The case in question involved Timothy Carpenter, who was sentenced to serve more than 100 years in prison for multiple robberies in Michigan and Ohio. With a court order that has a lower standard than a warrant, investigators obtained more than four months of location records from Carpenter’s cellphone company, and used that information to build a case against him.
Considering that CSLI data “is detailed, encyclopedic, and effortlessly compiled,” and that “individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements,” the court determined that “the government will generally need a warrant to access CSLI” to comply with the Fourth Amendment.
The narrow ruling, Roberts noted, does not apply to “other business records that might incidentally reveal location information” or “other collection techniques involving foreign affairs or national security.” He added that warrantless searches still may be conducted under “exigent circumstances.”
The Constitution Project called the ruling a “long-overdue advance for privacy rights” but also accused the court of “taking baby steps as tech sprints ahead.”
2/ SCOTUS needlessly punted on location tracking with real-time records, though the privacy impact is effectively the same. Citing our brief w/ @EFF, @BrennanCenter & more, SCOTUS noted that evolving tech means they’ll need to look at this in the future: https://t.co/0AxkIKLmNL pic.twitter.com/WibjK3qYLw
— The Constitution Project (@ConPro) June 22, 2018
The high court’s other four conservative justices—Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas—each wrote dissenting opinions. The ruling on Friday follows a 2014 decision in which the justices unanimously determined that police must obtain a warrant before they can search the cellphone of an arrested person.
This article was chosen for republication based on the interest of our readers. Anti-Media republishes stories from a number of other independent news sources. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect Anti-Media editorial policy.
Since you’re here…
…We have a small favor to ask. Fewer and fewer people are seeing Anti-Media articles as social media sites crack down on us, and advertising revenues across the board are quickly declining. However, unlike many news organizations, we haven’t put up a paywall because we value open and accessible journalism over profit — but at this point, we’re barely even breaking even. Hopefully, you can see why we need to ask for your help. Anti-Media’s independent journalism and analysis takes substantial time, resources, and effort to produce, but we do it because we believe in our message and hope you do, too.
If everyone who reads our reporting and finds value in it helps fund it, our future can be much more secure. For as little as $1 and a minute of your time, you can support Anti-Media. Thank you. Click here to support us