Once again, the law struggles to keep up with technology. This one is a bit screwy. Ruling issued today, Friday, June 22.
Over 40 years ago, SCOTUS created the "third-party doctrine," which states the 4th Amendment does not protect records or information an individual voluntarily shares with a 3rd party. Today, SCOTUS ruled that, despite this doctrine, policy need a warrant to obtain cell-site location information - a record of cell towers with which a cellphone is connected. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the 4 liberal justices in pointing to "seismic shifts in digital technology" which have allowed wireless carriers to collect "deeply revealing" information about cellphone owners that "should be protected" by the Constitution.
Roberts claimed this was a narrow ruling and left open the prospect that police might not need a warrant to get information about where someone was on the day that a crime was committed. But the he dissenting justices, who complained that it is likely to imperil, in the words of Justice Samuel Alito, “many legitimate and valuable investigative practices on which law enforcement has rightfully come to rely.”
The case came to SCOTUS from the Circuit and involved the case of Timothy Carpenter, Carpenter was convicted and sentenced to almost 116 years in prison for his role in a series of armed robberies in Ohio and Michigan. Law-enforcement officials used cell-site records from his cellphone provider to place him in the vicinity of the crimes. Carpenter argued that the jury should not hear about those records because the government had not obtained a warrant for them. A federal appeals court upheld his conviction, explaining that the government was not required to seek a warrant because Carpenter could not have expected cellphone records maintained by his service provider to remain private. This morning the Supreme Court reversed that ruling.
IMO, this ruling is a bit dangerous. The third-party doctrine has been in effect for over 40 years and has been enforce, basically without challenge, for most of that time. Now, I understand technology changes the playing field to some extent. But, we are getting dangerously close to hamgstringing law enforcement here.
Here is the complete decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/...7pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers
Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Over 40 years ago, SCOTUS created the "third-party doctrine," which states the 4th Amendment does not protect records or information an individual voluntarily shares with a 3rd party. Today, SCOTUS ruled that, despite this doctrine, policy need a warrant to obtain cell-site location information - a record of cell towers with which a cellphone is connected. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the 4 liberal justices in pointing to "seismic shifts in digital technology" which have allowed wireless carriers to collect "deeply revealing" information about cellphone owners that "should be protected" by the Constitution.
Roberts claimed this was a narrow ruling and left open the prospect that police might not need a warrant to get information about where someone was on the day that a crime was committed. But the he dissenting justices, who complained that it is likely to imperil, in the words of Justice Samuel Alito, “many legitimate and valuable investigative practices on which law enforcement has rightfully come to rely.”
The case came to SCOTUS from the Circuit and involved the case of Timothy Carpenter, Carpenter was convicted and sentenced to almost 116 years in prison for his role in a series of armed robberies in Ohio and Michigan. Law-enforcement officials used cell-site records from his cellphone provider to place him in the vicinity of the crimes. Carpenter argued that the jury should not hear about those records because the government had not obtained a warrant for them. A federal appeals court upheld his conviction, explaining that the government was not required to seek a warrant because Carpenter could not have expected cellphone records maintained by his service provider to remain private. This morning the Supreme Court reversed that ruling.
IMO, this ruling is a bit dangerous. The third-party doctrine has been in effect for over 40 years and has been enforce, basically without challenge, for most of that time. Now, I understand technology changes the playing field to some extent. But, we are getting dangerously close to hamgstringing law enforcement here.
Here is the complete decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/...7pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers
Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR