Skip to content
Menu
  • Original Short Fiction
Menu

Surveillance State: No Warrant Required for Phone Location Records

Posted on 14 April 2016 by The Tactical Hermit

We are getting closer and closer to full scale Legal Federal monitoring of ALL cellular devices folks. Every day the Feds are chipping away the 4th Amendment a little at a time. In a few years it will be non-existent..all in the name Of “National Security”.-SF

cell

Federal agents can obtain cellphone records that reveal a caller’s location without a warrant, a Cincinnati-based federal appeals court said on Wednesday in the latest rulingto tackle the scope of privacy protections for data transmitted by personal devices.

The records obtained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation from wireless carriers in 2011 showed that two Detroit men were near the scene of several robberies at the time they were committed. Timothy Carpenter and Timothy Sanders, who were ultimately convicted of participation in nine armed robberies, sought to exclude the records, saying they were protected by the Fourth Amendment.

A 2-1 panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that location records created when a mobile phone connects to a nearby cell tower were the equivalent of the writing on the outside of an envelope, rather than the letter inside.

“Cell-site data—like mailing addresses, phone numbers, and IP addresses—are information that facilitate personal communications, rather than part of the content of those communications themselves,” wrote Judge Raymond Kethledge. “The government’s collection of business records containing these data therefore is not a search.”

Judge Jane Branstetter Stranch joined the ruling in part but was skeptical of lumping location records together with bank and credit card records that law enforcement officers can retrieve from financial firms without a warrant.

“This case involves tracking physical location through cell towers and a personal phone, a device routinely carried on the individual’s person,” she wrote. “I am not convinced that the situation before us can be addressed appropriately with a test primarily used to obtain business records such as credit card purchases.”

Harold Gurewitz, a lawyer for Mr. Carpenter, said he and his client were considering their next move. They could ask the Sixth Circuit to rehear the case or petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review it. Until the high court steps in, Mr. Gurewitz said, “I think the issue is just going to be unclear.”

A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Detroit, which prosecuted the case, declined to comment.

The ruling aligns the Sixth Circuit with two other regional appeals courts and means that law enforcement officers in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee can obtain a court order for location data by showing merely that the records are relevant to an ongoing investigation. A warrant requires a showing of probable cause.

A three-judge panel of a fourth federal appeals court ruled in August that police need a warrant to obtain such records. That ruling is under review by the full court.

In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has erred on the side of privacy in disputes over whether the Fourth Amendment protects against the installation of a global positioning system tracker on a suspect’s vehicle or a search of his phone during an arrest.

But Judge Kethledge said he was bound a 1979 ruling in Smith v. Maryland in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the numbers dialed by a caller on a landline aren’t protected by the Fourth Amendment, because the caller knowingly gives that information to phone companies.

“The same things are true as to the locational information here,” he wrote. “Any cellphone user who has seen her phone’s signal strength fluctuate must know that, when she places or receives a call, her phone ‘exposes’ its location to the nearest cell tower and thus to the company that operates the tower.”

The cell records obtained by the FBI showed that Mr. Carpenter and his half brother, Mr. Sanders, were nearby the scene of four robberies in Warren, Ohio, and Detroit in 2010 and 2011.

Mr. Carpenter was sentenced to more than 116 years in prison, while Mr. Sanders was sentenced to about 14 years.

Nathan Freed Wessler, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a brief on behalf of Messrs. Carpenter and Sanders, said the ruling failed to account for the privacy violations made possible by devices that “we all need to carry around to live our lives normally.”

He went on, “When police obtain months’ worth of cell phone data comprising thousands of individual locations, like they did in this case, they should have to get a search warrant from a judge,” he said.

Read the Original Article at Wall Street Journal

 

0 thoughts on “Surveillance State: No Warrant Required for Phone Location Records”

  1. The Grey Enigma says:
    14 April 2016 at 18:42

    Reblogged this on The Grey Enigma.

  2. PARTNERING WITH EAGLES says:
    14 April 2016 at 23:47

    I just saw this videoon Y.T; Can’t speak for the reliability of the source channel, but what do you make of this weapon? P.S. now they are supposed to have an S500 system in preparation…
    https://youtu.be/nVj8T-skY6g

  3. Hammerhead says:
    15 April 2016 at 05:26

    Very Interesting. Will do some checking.

    You need to read Ghost Fleet ASAP…the authors make some interesting fictional “hypothesis” about the F-35 in future engagements with Chinese and Russian forces. Scary.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Tactical Hermit Substack

Subscribe

Recent Post

  • Stockpiling Ammunition: A Thorough Approach
  • “Joomteemf” Late Edition
  • Morning Laugh
  • Happy White Father’s Day!
  • The Surveillance State: Hackers are tampering with USB charging stations at Airports
General Franco (2008-2024)

Book of the Month

Fellow Conspirators

Area Ocho

American Partisan

Western Rifle Shooters Association

Brushbeater

Von Steuben Training and Consulting

CSAT

Politically Incorrect Humor and Memes

Freedom is Just Another Word

Prepared Gun Owners

Fix Bayonets

The Firearm Blog

BorderHawk

Cold Fury

Don Shift SHTF

NC Renegades

Big Country Ex-Pat

The Bayou Renaissance Man

Bustednuckles

The Feral Irishman

It Ain’t Holy Water

Evil White Guy

Pacific Paratrooper

Badlands Fieldcraft

Riskmap

Stuck Pig Medical

Swift Silent Deadly

Spotter Up

The Survival Homestead

Bacon Time!

SHTF Preparedness

Sigma 3 Survival School

The Organic Prepper

The Zombie Apocalypse Survival Homestead

Texas Gun Rights

The Gatalog

Taki’s Magazine

Defensive Training Group

The Trail Up Blood Hill

No White Guilt

Europe Renaissance

Vermont Folk Truth

The Occidental Observer

The Dissident Right

Daily Stormer

American Renaissance

Blacksmith Publishing

Arktos Publishing

Antelope Hill Publishing

White People Press

White Rabbit Radio

White Papers Substack

Viking Life Blog (Archived)

Identity Dixie

The Texian Partisan

Southern Vanguard

League of the South

The Unz Review

Dissident Thoughts

The Third Position

Renegade Tribune

COPYRIGHT NOTICE/DISCLAIMER & FAIR USE ACT

All blog postings, including all non-fiction and fictional works are copyrighted and considered the sole property of the Tactical Hermit Blog. The names, characters and incidents portrayed in the short stories and novelettes are entirely fictional and are of the author's imagination. Any resemblance to actual events, locales or organizations or persons living or dead is entirely coincidental, The information contained in the articles posted to this site are for informational and/or educational purposes only. The Tactical Hermit disclaims any and all liability resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained herein.

The views and opinions expressed on this blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any of the companies that advertise here. 

Much of the information on this blog contains copyrighted material whose use has not always been specifically authorized by the rightful copyright owner. This material is made available in an effort to educate and inform and not for remuneration. Under these guidelines this constitutes "Fair Use" under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. The publisher of this site DOES NOT own the copyrights of the images on the site. The copyrights lie with the respective owners.

© 2025 | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme