Among the Supreme Court’s many upcoming cases is Carpenter v. United States, which will settle the question of whether your location and movements, as..
Among the Supreme Court’s many upcoming cases is Carpenter v. United States, which will settle the question of whether your location and movements, as determined by the ordinary interactions of your phone with the network, are protected by the Fourth Amendment. Dozens of companies, advocates, experts and interested parties just weighed in ahead of the hearing.
The issue, briefly summarized: Timothy Carpenter was convicted partly by the use of 127 days (and 12,898 individual location points) of cell site location information (CSLI) acquired by police from telecoms without a warrant. The argument that this information was protected, and that its collection constituted unreasonable search and seizure, failed to convince the Appeals court.
Just as a refresher, here’s that Fourth Amendment:
The ACLU, which represents Carpenter in the case, already filed a brief explaining its position, but it’s clear that plenty of others, from tech giants to gun owners, want to add their voices to the chorus. Here are the highlights from their Amicus Briefs, which are helpfully listed here if you’ d prefer to read them in full. (I’ ve done some minor formatting.)
Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, et al.
Center for Democracy and Technology
EFF, Brennan Center for Justice, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al
(Note: Smith v. Maryland is a 1979 Supreme Court case that established the precedent that phone records don’ t require a warrant, mostly because of how analog phones worked — the data wasn’ t yours to control, but had been volunteered to a third party, i.e. the phone company.)
Electronic Privacy Information Center and associated experts
Scholars of Criminal Procedure and Privacy
Pretty much every major tech company, plus Verizon, which owns Oath, which owns TechCrunch
Technology experts including Ashkan Soltani, Bruce Schneier, Nicholas Weaver, Scott Bradner, Susan Landau, Philip Zimmermann
And in case you thought it was just left-leaning companies and individuals lining up:
US Justice Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, Citizens United Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense fund et al
They even cite Ayn Rand later!
While this issue may seem like a no-brainer to some, the fact is there is a much-relied-upon precedent that benefits law enforcement and makes their job easier. Arguments will likely emerge over the practical costs of getting warrants for these common requests — i.e. criminals will get away while the paperwork is pending. There are no easy answers for that, considering the incredible amounts of red tape already involved in such things.
That said, if it’s unconstitutional, it’s unconstitutional — and that’s what the Supreme Court is charged with determining. It may be that Congress and local government have to deal with the fallout.
Carpenter v. United States is on the court’s October Term, but there are some serious cases on its plate (as there often are) , including some important binding arbitration stuff and Trump v. Hawaii. So we’ ll see if there’s time.
