Bloomberg Law’s® extensive network of reporters and editors helps subscribers to stay ahead of legal
Aug. 10 — Police need to get a search warrant before they grab cell tower records kept by mobile phone companies that can be used to track a user's location, a divided Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Aug. 4 ( Zanders v. State, 2016 BL 252090, Ind. Ct. App., No. 15A01-1509-CR-1519, 8/4/16 ).
The decision is significant because it adds to a growing split among state and federal courts.
The third-party doctrine doesn't apply here because a mobile phone customer doesn't hand over location data to the provider—voluntarily or otherwise—and therefore doesn't assume the risk that the company will turn the information over to the police, the court said in an opinion by Judge Patricia A. Riley.
“This decision adds to the split on this issue and improves the odds that the Supreme Court will grant cert. on the next petition that comes before it,” John Wesley Hall, a Little Rock, Ark., criminal defense attorney, told Bloomberg BNA.
The court may get that opportunity soon because the en banc Fourth Circuit recently ruled that police don't need a warrant to secure cell site location information (CSLI) from a provider and the 90-day deadline for seeking a writ of certiorari is fast approaching, he said.
One justice has already indicated she'd be amenable to reviewing that very question, Hall added.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested in her concurring opinion in United States v. Jones, 2012 BL 14420 (U.S. 2012), that the time has come to re-examine a doctrine which seems “ill-suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks.”
The state argued that the police didn't violate Marcus Zanders's constitutional rights when they seized cell site location data linking his mobile phone to a crime scene because citizens have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the business records kept by a third party.
Prosecutors pointed to United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), and Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), which held that investigators don't need a search warrant to obtain a suspect's bank records or a phone company's records of the numbers dialed by land-line phones.OTHER COURTS
Although all the federal circuit courts that have addressed the issue have ruled that there's no expectation of privacy in CSLI records, courts in Massachusetts , New Jersey and Florida , plus federal district courts in Maryland and New York have reached the opposite conclusion.
But the Indiana court said that the third-party doctrine has limited utility in the digital age given the proliferation of data that is unwittingly revealed to third parties.
“The extent of information that we expose to third parties has increased by orders of magnitude since the Supreme Court decided Miller and Smith,” the court said.
“To now apply a rigorous application of Miller and Smith, as the State advocates, would create a rule that would preclude virtually any Fourth Amendment challenge against government inspection of third-party records,” the court said.
Unlike bank records or dialed phone numbers, cell-site data is neither tangible nor visible to the customer, but is rather “quietly and automatically calculated by the network” without any input from the user, the court said.
A mobile phone user can't be said to have voluntarily conveyed information that the user never possessed but was instead generated by the provider without the user's involvement, the court added.
“Suppose some security technology like OnStar also kept track of your vehicle's location at all times and stored that information on the company's servers,” Hall wondered. “Could the police go to the company with a subpoena demanding all the records on your car?”
Leanna Weissman, Lawrenceburg, Ind. represented Zanders. The Indiana Attorney General's Office represented the state.
To contact the reporter on this story: Lance J. Rogers in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: C. Reilly Larson at email@example.com
Copyright © 2016 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)