In re Application of the United States for Historical Cell Site Data

Last updated
In re Application of the United States for Historical Cell Site Data
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJuly 30, 2013
Citation(s)724 F.3d 600
Holding
Court orders under the Stored Communications Act compelling cell phone service providers to disclose historical cell site location information are not per se unconstitutional.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Thomas Morrow Reavley, James L. Dennis, Edith Brown Clement
Case opinions
Majority Edith Brown Clement, joined by Thomas Morrow Reavley
Dissent James L. Dennis
Laws applied
Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2703(d)), Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

In re Application of the United States for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2013), was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the government can access cell site records without a warrant. Specifically, the court held that court orders under the Stored Communications Act compelling cell phone providers to disclose historical cell site information are not per se unconstitutional. [1]

Contents

Section 2703(d) of the Stored Communications Act allows law enforcement agents to obtain court orders for cell site information without a warrant. [2] Privacy advocates argued that the Act was unconstitutional because it violated callers' reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. The court held that cell site information is a "business record" that callers voluntarily convey to their phone service providers. Since information voluntarily conveyed to third parties receives weaker protection under the Fourth Amendment, the court held that section 2703(d) of the Stored Communications Act is not per se unconstitutional.

The New York Times called the case "a significant victory for law enforcement." [3] The Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote that the opinion was based on a "misguided belief that a user understands and voluntarily chooses to reveal their location to the cell phone provider and ultimately the government through the user's own free will." [4]

Background

Facts

In early October 2010, law enforcement agents in Texas applied for three court orders under section 2703(d) of the Stored Communications Act, seeking to compel cell phone service providers to disclose cell site information for three phones for the past 60 days. [5] According to the district court:

Among other things, each application sought "records or other information pertaining to subscriber(s) or customer(s), including historical cell site information and call detail records (including any two-way radio feature mode) for the sixty (60) days prior to the date the Order is signed by the Court (but not including the contents of communications)." Each application identically defined the requested information as "the antenna tower and sector to which the cell phone sends its signal," specifically including "the cellsite/sector(s) used by the mobile telephone to obtain service for a call or when in an idle state." In other words, the Government seeks continuous location data to track the target phone over a two-month period, whether the phone was in active use or not. [5] : 829 

Procedural history

Magistrate Judge Stephen William Smith of United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas issued an opinion on October 29, 2010 denying the government's applications on the grounds that such a disclosure violates the Fourth Amendment. [5] [6]

The district court adopted the magistrate judge's decision in a single-page ruling on November 11, 2011, stating "the standard under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C . §2703(d), is below that required by the Constitution". [7]

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court in an opinion issued on July 30, 2013. [1]

District court opinion

The district court held that compelled disclosure of cell site information violates the Fourth Amendment. [5] : 846 

The opinion began by noting that the court has typically granted similar government requests for historical cell site information. [5] : 829  "However," the court noted, "recent months have brought to light important developments in both technology and caselaw raising serious constitutional doubts about such rulings." [5] : 829  In particular, the court pointed to United States v. Maynard , which held that constitutionally unprotected location data can receive protection when aggregated over time. [5] : 830  The court also cited an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit directing a lower court to determine whether cell site records could encroach upon citizens' reasonable expectations of privacy. [5] : 830 

Next, the opinion surveyed recent developments in cell phone technology. It noted that in 2010, when the opinion was published, there were over 251,000 cell sites in the U.S., compared to just 913 in 1986, the year the Stored Communications Act became law. [5] : 832  The court pointed out that "knowing the base station (or sector ID) is tantamount to knowing the user's location to within a relatively small geographic area." [5] : 833  The court found that the differences in accuracy between GPS location data and cell site data are "increasingly obsolete, and will soon be effectively meaningless." [5] : 834 

The court reached three legal conclusions. First, it held that cell site information reveals non-public information about constitutionally protected spaces. Specifically, it held that cell site information could reveal whether an item or a person was in an individual's home at a particular time, which the Supreme Court held in United States v. Karo to be protected under the Fourth Amendment. [5] : 835–38 

Second, it held that Fourth Amendment protections apply to cell site information because it can reveal sensitive personal information over time. The court based this ruling on United States v. Maynard , in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that "[p]rolonged surveillance reveals types of information not revealed by short-term surveillance, such as what a person does repeatedly, what he does not do, and what he does ensemble." [5] : 838–40  (The Supreme Court later affirmed Maynard on narrower grounds in United States v. Jones , 565 U.S. ___ (2012).)

Third, it held that users do not voluntarily convey cell site information to their mobile providers. The government argued that cell site information is not entitled to Fourth Amendment protections, citing Supreme Court cases holding that law enforcement does not need a warrant to access information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. [5] : 840–45  The court disagreed, holding that cell phone users' disclosure of location information is "unknowing" and "inadvertent." [5] : 840–45 

Fifth circuit opinion

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court, holding that cell site information is not constitutionally protected because callers voluntarily convey the data to their mobile providers.

First, the court addressed whether the magistrate judge had discretion to require the government to seek a warrant. [1] : 606  The ACLU (in an amicus brief filed jointly with the EFF) argued that Section 2703(d) of the Stored Communications Act gives magistrate judges the authority to require the government to obtain a warrant to obtain historical cell site information. [1] : 606  Section 2703(d) states than an order "shall issue only if the governmental entity offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation." [2] Relying on a Third Circuit opinion reaching the same conclusion, the ACLU argued that the phrase "only if" created a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the court to issue an order. [1] : 606  In other words, if the government shows "specific and articulable facts," a judge may issue an order, but she may also decide to require a warrant.

However, the Fifth Circuit here disagreed with the ACLU's reading of the statute. Under the court's interpretation, the word "shall" is "the language of command." The court held that "the 'shall issue' term directs the court to issue the order if all the necessary conditions in the statute are met" (emphasis added). [1] : 607  Thus a magistrate judge must issue an order for cell site information if the government meets the "specific and articulable facts" standard. "If these three conditions are met," the Fifth Circuit held, "the court does not have the discretion to refuse to grant the order." [1] : 607 

Moreover, the court held even if the ACLU's argument were correct, the issue of magistrate judges' discretion "would be beside the point here." [1] : 608  The lower court held that "all § 2703(d) orders for cell site information were unconstitutional". Thus the court here was forced to confront whether 2703(d) orders are constitutional.

The ACLU's argument focused on the potential of cell site data to reveal sensitive information about a person's location. [1] : 608  It argued that cell site data information can track people while they are inside their homes, which the Supreme Court has held to be a constitutionally protected space. [1] : 608  It also cited five justices' concurring opinions in United States v. Jones , which suggested that higher constitutional protections might apply to location information aggregated over time. [1] : 608 

In contrast, the government's argument focused on who is gathering the data. It argued that the government itself does not collect cell site location data. [1] : 610  Rather, cell phone users generate this data in the course of doing business with their phone service providers. [1] : 610  Several Supreme Court opinions have established that the Fourth Amendment does not protect so-called "business records." [1] : 610  Since the information is not constitutionally protected, the government argued that it does not need a warrant to compel phone companies to turn over the data to investigators. [1] : 610 

The court held that "cell site information is clearly a business record." [1] : 611  The data is the result of a business transaction between the caller and the phone company. The ACLU nonetheless argued that callers do not voluntarily convey location information. [1] : 612  The government disagreed, arguing that phone users are aware that location information may be transmitted to their phone company when they place calls. [1] : 612  The court agreed with the government:

Because a cell phone user makes a choice to get a phone, to select a particular service provider, and to make a call, and because he knows that the call conveys cell site information, the provider retains this information, and the provider will turn it over to the police if they have a court order, he voluntarily conveys his cell site data each time he makes a call. [1] : 614 

In conclusion, the court held that "Section 2703(d) orders to obtain historical cell site information for specified cell phones at the points at which the user places and terminates a call are not categorically unconstitutional. [1] : 615  It did not rule on other forms of mobile location tracking, like GPS tracking or the collection of data from all phones using a given cell tower.

Subsequent developments

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court disagreed with the Fifth Circuit's ruling in this case. In Commonwealth v. Augustine, the court concluded "that although the CSLI [Cell Site Location Information] at issue here is a business record of the defendant's cellular service provider, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in it," and therefore the government must seek a warrant to obtain long term cell site data. [8] [9] [10] The court recognized that "GPS data and historical CSLI are linked at a fundamental level", as they both implicate a person's reasonable expectation of privacy in the same manner, by tracking the person's movements. [8] : 254  The court decided that tracking a person's location in the urban Boston area for two weeks was "more than sufficient to intrude upon the defendant's expectation of privacy safeguarded by art." [8] : 254–55  The court did not consider what the time boundaries are for such an order to not implicate a person's reasonable privacy interest.

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 In re Application of the United States for Historical Cell Site Data, 724F.3d600 (5th Cir.2013).
  2. 1 2 18 U.S.C.   § 2703(d)
  3. ↑ Sengupta, Somini (July 30, 2013). "Warrantless Cellphone Tracking Is Upheld". New York Times. Retrieved 4 March 2014.
  4. ↑ Fakhoury, Hanni (July 31, 2013). "New Court Ruling Makes it Easier for Police to Track Your Cell Phone". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 4 March 2014.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 In re Application of the United States for Historical Cell Site Data, 747F. Supp. 2d827 (S.D. Tex.2010).
  6. ↑ Soghoian, Chris (1 Oct 2012). "Tuesday: Federal Appeals Court Hears Important Cell Phone Tracking Case" . Retrieved 10 March 2014.
  7. ↑ In re Application of the United States for Historical Cell Site Data, Case 4:11-mc-00223 (S.D. Tex.Nov 11, 2011).
  8. 1 2 3 Commonwealth v. Augustine, 467Mass.230, 232(2014).
  9. ↑ Fakhoury, Hanni (February 19, 2014). "New Massachusetts Decision Requires Warrant For Cell Tracking". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 18 May 2014.
  10. ↑ "Massachusetts high court requires warrant for cell phone location information". ACLU of Massachusetts. February 18, 2014. Archived from the original on 19 May 2014. Retrieved 18 May 2014.

Related Research Articles

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution 1791 amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, it sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Telephone tapping is the monitoring of telephone and Internet-based conversations by a third party, often by covert means. The wire tap received its name because, historically, the monitoring connection was an actual electrical tap on the telephone line. Legal wiretapping by a government agency is also called lawful interception. Passive wiretapping monitors or records the traffic, while active wiretapping alters or otherwise affects it.

Electronic Communications Privacy Act

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) was enacted by the United States Congress to extend restrictions on government wire taps of telephone calls to include transmissions of electronic data by computer, added new provisions prohibiting access to stored electronic communications, i.e., the Stored Communications Act, and added so-called pen trap provisions that permit the tracing of telephone communications . ECPA was an amendment to Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which was primarily designed to prevent unauthorized government access to private electronic communications. The ECPA has been amended by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) of 1994, the USA PATRIOT Act (2001), the USA PATRIOT reauthorization acts (2006), and the FISA Amendments Act (20

Mobile phone tracking Identifying the location of a mobile phone

Mobile phone tracking is a process for identifying the location of a mobile phone, whether stationary or moving. Localization may be effected by a number of technologies, such as the multilateration of radio signals between (several) cell towers of the network and the phone or by simply using GNSS. To locate a mobile phone using multilateration of mobile radio signals, the phone must emit at least the idle signal to contact nearby antenna towers and does not require an active call. The Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) is based on the phone's signal strength to nearby antenna masts.

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), held in a 5–4 decision which crossed ideological lines that the use of a thermal imaging, or FLIR, device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant.

Stored Communications Act

The Stored Communications Act is a law that addresses voluntary and compelled disclosure of "stored wire and electronic communications and transactional records" held by third-party internet service providers (ISPs). It was enacted as Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA).

<i>United States v. Warshak</i>

United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 is a criminal case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holding that government agents violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights by compelling his Internet service provider (ISP) to turn over his emails without first obtaining a search warrant based on probable cause. However, constitutional violation notwithstanding, the evidence obtained with these emails was admissible at trial because the government agents relied in good faith on the Stored Communications Act (SCA). The court further declared that the SCA is unconstitutional to the extent that it allows the government to obtain emails without a warrant.

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

Stingray phone tracker Cellular phone surveillance device

The StingRay is an IMSI-catcher, a cellular phone surveillance device, manufactured by Harris Corporation. Initially developed for the military and intelligence community, the StingRay and similar Harris devices are in widespread use by local and state law enforcement agencies across Canada, the United States, and in the United Kingdom. Stingray has also become a generic name to describe these kinds of devices.

The Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance Act was a bill introduced in the U.S. Congress in 2011 that attempted to limit government surveillance using geolocation information such as signals from GPS systems in mobile devices. The bill was sponsored by Sen. Ron Wyden and Rep. Jason Chaffetz. Since its initial proposal in June 2011, the GPS Act awaits consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as the House.

<i>United States v. Graham</i>

United States v. Graham, 846 F. Supp. 2d 384, was a Maryland District Court case in which the Court held that historical cell site location data is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Reacting to the precedent established by the recent Supreme Court case United States v. Jones in conjunction with the application of the third party doctrine, Judge Richard D. Bennett, found that "information voluntarily disclosed to a third party ceases to enjoy Fourth Amendment protection" because that information no longer belongs to the consumer, but rather to the telecommunications company that handles the transmissions records. The historical cell site location data is then not subject to the privacy protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment standard of probable cause, but rather to the Stored Communications Act, which governs the voluntary or compelled disclosure of stored electronic communications records.

The third-party doctrine is a United States legal doctrine that holds that people who voluntarily give information to third parties—such as banks, phone companies, internet service providers (ISPs), and e-mail servers—have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in that information. A lack of privacy protection allows the United States government to obtain information from third parties without a legal warrant and without otherwise complying with the Fourth Amendment prohibition against search and seizure without probable cause and a judicial search warrant.

<i>ACLU v. Clapper</i>

American Civil Liberties Union v. James Clapper, No. 13-3994, 959 F.Supp.2d 724, was a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its affiliate, the New York Civil Liberties Union, against the United States federal government that challenged the legality of the National Security Agency's (NSA) bulk phone metadata collection program. On December 27, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the case, finding that the collection of metadata did not violate the Fourth Amendment. On January 2, 2014, the ACLU appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On May 7, 2015, the appeals court ruled that Section 215 of the Patriot Act did not authorize the bulk collection of metadata, which judge Gerard E. Lynch called a "staggering" amount of information.

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional.

United States v. Quartavious Davis is a United States federal legal case that challenged the use in a criminal trial of location data obtained without a search warrant from MetroPCS, a cell phone service provider. Mobile phone tracking data had helped place the defendant in this case at the scene of several crimes, for which he was convicted. The defendant appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which found the warrantless data collection had violated his constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but declined to order a new trial because the evidence was collected in good faith. The Eleventh Circuit has since vacated this decision pending a rehearing by the Eleventh Circuit en banc. United States v. Davis, 573 Fed. Appx. 925. On 5 May 2015, the en banc order upheld the use of the information. On 9th Nov 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear this case on appeal.

Mosaic theory (US law) US legal theory about admissible evidence gathered from many seemingly separate pieces of information

The mosaic theory is a legal doctrine in American courts for considering issues of information collection, government transparency, and search and seizure, especially in cases involving invasive or large-scale data collection by government entities. The theory takes its name from mosaic tile art: while an entire picture can be seen from a mosaic's tiles at a distance, no clear picture emerges from viewing a single tile in isolation. The mosaic theory calls for a cumulative understanding of data collection by law enforcement and analyzes searches "as a collective sequence of steps rather than individual steps."

The Email Privacy Act is a bill introduced in the United States Congress. The bipartisan proposed federal law was sponsored by Representative Kevin Yoder, a Republican from Kansas, and then-Representative Jared Polis, a Democrat of Colorado. The law is designed to update and reform existing online communications law, specifically the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986.

Microsoft Corp. v. United States, known on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court as United States v. Microsoft Corp., 584 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 1186 (2018), was a data privacy case involving the extraterritoriality of law enforcement seeking electronic data under the 1986 Stored Communications Act, Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), in light of modern computing and Internet technologies such as data centers and cloud storage.

Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ____ (2018), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the privacy of historical cell site location information (CSLI). The Court held, in a 5–4 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, that the government violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution by accessing historical CSLI records containing the physical locations of cellphones without a search warrant.

Digital Search and Seizure refers to the ability of the United States Government to obtain and read an individual's private digital correspondence and material under The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.