For the professional edge in your day-to-day practice, rely on the most timely, objective reporting on significant developments, trends, and emerging patterns in criminal law today—Criminal Law...
The federal government got some help recently from several amicus briefs supporting its position in this U.S. Supreme Court term’s blockbuster search and seizure case.
After over a dozen amicus briefs were filed in August for the criminal defendant, four recent pro-government filings in Carpenter v. United States present the justices with opposing outside viewpoints to help them decide the Fourth Amendment case.
These recent filers include law professor Orin Kerr, whose scholarship has been cited in hundreds of court opinions. Those opinions include United States v. Jones and Riley v. California, the high court’s two most recent decisions grappling with some of the technological and privacy issues presented in Carpenter.
On the other side, fifteen amicus briefs—from law professors, privacy groups, and others—argued that law enforcement needed a warrant to get Timothy Carpenter’s mobile phone location records from his wireless carrier. Law enforcement used the data—known as cell site location information—to show that Carpenter was in the vicinity of several robberies when they occurred. A sixteenth outside brief, from major technology companies, raised similar arguments but claimed to take neither side.
All sixteen briefs took issue with the “third-party doctrine,” which holds that people don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in information they voluntarily disclose to third parties, such as when they transmit location data to their carriers. Therefore no warrant is required to get the data from the third party.
The filings on Carpenter’s behalf paint the third-party doctrine as a draconian relic that, left unchecked by the Supreme Court in this case, will have dystopian effects for a society increasingly reliant on mobile phones.
But Kerr’s brief and the other pro-government filings—from several states, a national prosecutor’s group, and a crime victim—defend the third-party doctrine, and they question the factual and legal assumptions of the pro-Carpenter briefs.
The briefs for Carpenter exaggerate the Orwellian repercussions of phone data collection, and they ignore the consequences of the burden a warrant requirement would impose on law enforcement, the pro-government amici say.
A professor at George Washington University Law School in Washington, Kerr makes several arguments that a warrant shouldn’t be required for the phone records at issue here.
For one, law enforcement’s collection of such records is “the network equivalent of observations in public space,” his brief said.
“Obtaining historical cell-site records from a cell phone provider is like obtaining testimony from an eyewitness to suspicious conduct,” which doesn’t require a warrant, his brief said.
Another reason a warrant isn’t needed is that legislation like the Stored Communications Act already strikes the proper balance between privacy and security, Kerr’s brief said. “Although cell phone technology expands government power in some ways, it shrinks government power in other ways that Carpenter ignores,” like the rise of encryption and applications like WhatsApp that allow criminals to communicate over their phones in relative secrecy, it said.
The SCA requires the government to show “specific and articulable facts” showing the requested records “are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.”
Rejecting Carpenter’s argument below that a warrant was required to get his phone records, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said it sufficed that the government obtained the records under the act.
“The Act stakes out a middle ground between full Fourth Amendment protection and no protection at all,” the federal appeals court said. Kerr is cited in the Sixth Circuit opinion.
“There is nothing troubling about applying the third-party doctrine to uphold the congressionally regulated and judicially supervised” SCA court order “at issue here,” the states’ brief said.
The SCA’s standard—which requires more proof than a subpoena but less proof than a warrant—is an important crime-fighting tool, the law enforcement briefs said.
“If law-enforcement officers must have probable cause to get such records in the first place, many crimes will never be solved,” the states’ brief claimed. Such orders are used to determine, for example, whether a particular suspect merits further investigation, it said.
Plus, information obtained with these court orders can clear innocent suspects, the states said.
The law enforcement briefs also questioned the privacy concerns raised by Carpenter and his supporters.
“While citing statistics from carriers’ transparency reports on the numbers of requests made for” cell site location information, the pro-Carpenter briefs “make no effort to put those absolute numbers in context,” the prosecutors’ brief said.
“For example, Verizon’s 53,532 requests” cited by the Electronic Frontier Foundation‘s brief, “as compared to its more than 142 million subscribers reveals that law enforcement obtains only the tiniest shard of this type of information—less than one-hundredth of a percentage point—hardly the dragnet so frequently alleged,” it said.
“There is no evidence that SCA orders for cell-tower records have ever been abused to the detriment of legitimate privacy interests,” the states’ brief said.
“As a crime victim, I have a personal obligation to share my concerns with this Court,” Michael Varco said in his brief filed in support of the government.
Varco wants the justices “to understand how frustrating it has been to observe all the ways that companies track the locations of mobile devices—when users let them do so—only to see none of that information available to help” him, his brief said.
He was the victim of an “unprovoked assault” in Washington in 2016 that badly injured his face and jaw, his brief said. Varco’s experience attempting to get law enforcement to use technology to help find his assailant has prompted his interest in the issues presented in Carpenter.
The march of technology, including the proliferation of ride services and the advent of self-driving cars, cautions against doing away with the third party doctrine, Varco’s brief said.
He recounts the story of the Son of Sam killer who terrorized New York City in the 1970s and was identified in part by police connecting him to a parking ticket for his car.
“What would happen today if the killer went to and from the murders using a ride service instead of his own car?” Varco asks.
“If the third-party doctrine goes away, then a killer like the Son of Sam might use an autonomous car through a ride service to lower his risk of capture,” his brief said.
“Some would like this Court to believe that, due to new technologies in the digital age, an Orwellian state with constant surveillance is imminent,” but Carpenter’s case “does not justify those fears,” it said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jordan S. Rubin in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: C. Reilly Larson at email@example.com
Copyright © 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)