Smith v. Maryland

Last updated

Smith v. Maryland
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 28, 1979
Decided June 20, 1979
Full case nameMichael Lee Smith v. Maryland
Citations442 U.S. 735 ( more )
99 S. Ct. 2577; 61 L. Ed. 2d 220; 1979 U.S. LEXIS 134
Case history
PriorSmith v. State, 283 Md. 156, 389 A.2d 858 (1978); cert. granted, 439 U.S. 1001(1978).
Holding
The installation and use of a pen register is not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant is required.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart
Byron White  · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun  · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist  · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
MajorityBlackmun, joined by Burger, White, Rehnquist, Stevens
DissentStewart, joined by Brennan
DissentMarshall, joined by Brennan
Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), was a Supreme Court case holding that the installation and use of a pen register by the police to obtain information on a suspect's telephone calls was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and hence no search warrant was required. In the majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun rejected the idea that the installation and use of a pen register constitutes a violation of the suspect's reasonable expectation of privacy since the telephone numbers would be available to and recorded by the phone company anyway. [1]

Contents

The Smith ruling was the Supreme Court's first significant articulation of the third-party doctrine in which government investigators may be permitted to search a person's private information by obtaining it not from the person directly, but from a business or other party with which the person has traded such information voluntarily. [2]

Background

The law surrounding police searches of a suspect's telephone information dates back to 1928. That year, the Supreme Court ruled in Olmstead v. United States that wiretapping of private phone calls does not require a warrant under the Fourth Amendment because the intrusion does not take place within a private home. [3] That ruling was overturned in 1967 in Katz v. United States , in which the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment applied not just to places but to a person's private life, thus making a warrant required for many more types of police searches. [4]

Smith v. Maryland originated in 1976, when police in Baltimore, Maryland suspected Michael Lee Smith of robbing a woman and then continuing to harass her via telephone. Police sought evidence that Smith had called the victim's phone number, and approached the local telephone company about installing a pen register at the company's central office to record the numbers that Smith had called from his home phone. The pen register information revealed that Smith had indeed called the victim, and this information was used to support his arrest and conviction. [1]

Smith appealed his conviction in Maryland court, arguing that police collection of information about his telephone calls was a search that required a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. His constitutional argument was rejected and his criminal conviction stood. [5] Smith appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which took the case.

Opinion of the court

The Supreme Court, in a majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun, held that police use of a pen register to collect information on telephone usage is not a search because the "petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company." Since Smith "disclosed" the dialed numbers to the telephone company so that they could connect his calls, he could not reasonably expect that the numbers he dialed were private. [1]

Per the third-party doctrine, the court determined that a customer on a public telephone network uses the service voluntarily and must accept that the network provider knows and records the numbers called in order to connect calls and charge accordingly. [1] Thus, the voluntary network customer must also accept that other parties, including the police, can review that usage information and there is no realistic expectation of privacy for that data. [2] Therefore, the police are not required to obtain a warrant to collect that information. [1]

Dissenting opinions

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Potter Stewart argued that, like the contents of a conversation, the record of numbers dialed from a private telephone should be constitutionally protected because the phone numbers that someone calls can provide a portrait of their personal life and therefore should be subjected to constitutional protections. According to Stewart, even though a pen register does not record the content of a phone call, "The numbers dialed from a private telephone—although certainly more prosaic than the conversation itself—are not without 'content'." [1]

In another dissenting opinion, Justice Thurgood Marshall expressed his disagreement with the majority's interpretation of the third-party doctrine, stating: "The use of pen registers, I believe, constitutes such an extensive intrusion. [...] The prospect of unregulated governmental monitoring will undoubtedly prove disturbing even to those with nothing illicit to hide. Many individuals, including members of unpopular political organizations or journalists with confidential sources, may legitimately wish to avoid disclosure of their personal contacts." [1]

Impact and legacy

The Smith decision solidified the third-party doctrine, making it easier for government investigators to surveil information that the users of telecommunications networks voluntarily share with network providers. [2] The Smith decision also added to the definition of types of communication that may or may not fall within the reasonable expectation of privacy in light of new developments in telecommunications service. [6]

However, the ruling concerned landline telephone technologies that were prevalent in 1979, but the precedent is still being used decades later to justify government surveillance of more advanced Internet communications platforms that collect much more personal information, including the content of messages, and are not necessarily used "voluntarily". [7] This has led to some criticism of the use of the Smith precedent by the National Security Agency (NSA) and law enforcement entities to justify modern electronic surveillance. [6] [8] This conundrum has led one federal judge to call for the Smith precedent to be reevaluated or eliminated in light of more recent technological developments, [9] though other judges have accepted its use in court disputes surrounding surveillance by the NSA. [10] This has resulted in some calls to reassess both the third-party doctrine and the continued efficacy of the Smith precedent in light of modern telecommunications technologies and the personal information they collect. [11] [12]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court</span> U.S. federal court

The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), also called the FISA Court, is a U.S. federal court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 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 and 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.

Wiretapping, also known as wire tapping or 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 an analog telephone or telegraph 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.

A pen register, or dialed number recorder (DNR), is a device that records all numbers called from a particular telephone line. The term has come to include any device or program that performs similar functions to an original pen register, including programs monitoring Internet communications.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Electronic Communications Privacy Act</span> 1986 United States federal law

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 (2008)

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court redefined what constitutes a "search" or "seizure" with regard to the protections of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The ruling expanded the Fourth Amendment's protections from an individual's "persons, houses, papers, and effects", as specified in the Constitution's text, to include any areas where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy". The reasonable expectation of privacy standard, now known as the Katz test, was formulated in a concurring opinion by Justice John Marshall Harlan II.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">MAINWAY</span> NSA database of US telephone calls

MAINWAY is a database maintained by the United States' National Security Agency (NSA) containing metadata for hundreds of billions of telephone calls made through the largest telephone carriers in the United States, including AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile.

In United States constitutional law, expectation of privacy is a legal test which is crucial in defining the scope of the applicability of the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is related to, but is not the same as, a right to privacy, a much broader concept which is found in many legal systems. Overall, expectations of privacy can be subjective or objective.

A call detail record (CDR) is a data record produced by a telephone exchange or other telecommunications equipment that documents the details of a telephone call or other telecommunications transactions that passes through that facility or device. The record contains various attributes of the call, such as time, duration, completion status, source number, and destination number. It is the automated equivalent of the paper toll tickets that were written and timed by operators for long-distance calls in a manual telephone exchange.

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court 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.

<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>Klayman v. Obama</i> American federal court case

Klayman v. Obama, 957 F.Supp.2d 1, was a decision by the United States District Court for District of Columbia finding that the National Security Agency's (NSA) bulk phone metadata collection program was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The ruling was later overturned on jurisdictional grounds, leaving the constitutional implications of NSA surveillance unaddressed.

<i>American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper</i> American federal court case

American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, 785 F.3d 787, 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 as represented by then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. The ACLU challenged the legality and constitutionality of the National Security Agency's (NSA) bulk phone metadata collection program.

In Re Electronic Privacy Information Center, 134 S.Ct. 638 (2013), was a direct petition to the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the National Security Agency's (NSA) telephony metadata collection program. On July 8, 2013, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition, or a writ of certiorari, to vacate an order of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in which the court compelled Verizon to produce telephony metadata records from all of its subscribers' calls and deliver those records to the NSA. On November 18, 2013, the Supreme Court denied EPIC's petition.

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

<i>United States v. Davis</i> (2014)

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.

Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ___, 138 S.Ct. 2206 (2018), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the privacy of historical cell site location information (CSLI). The Court held that the government violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution when it accesses historical CSLI records containing the physical locations of cellphones without a search warrant.

United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court that held that bank records are not subject to protection under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case, along with Smith v. Maryland, established the principle of the third-party doctrine in relation to privacy rights.

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

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).
  2. 1 2 3 Solove, Daniel J. (2013). Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff between Privacy and Security. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. pp. 102–110. ISBN   978-0300172331.
  3. ↑ Olmstead v. United States , 277 U.S. 438 (1928).
  4. ↑ Katz v. United States, 389 US 347 (1967).
  5. ↑ Smith v. State, 389 A. 2d 858 (Md: Court of Appeals, 1978).
  6. 1 2 Cramer, Benjamin W. (2018). "A Proposal to Adopt Data Discrimination Rather than Privacy as the Justification for Rolling Back Data Surveillance". Journal of Information Policy. 8: 5–33. doi: 10.5325/jinfopoli.8.2018.0005 . S2CID   158194048 – via JSTOR.
  7. ↑ Nissenbaum, Helen (1998). "Protecting Privacy in an Information Age: The Problem of Privacy in Public". Law and Philosophy. 17 (5): 559–596.
  8. ↑ Smith, Lauren Elena (2013). "Jonesing for a Test: Fourth Amendment Privacy in the Wake of United States v. Jones". Berkeley Technology Law Journal. 28 (Annual Review): 1003–1036 – via HeinOnline.
  9. ↑ Klayman v. Obama, 957 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.C.D.C., 2013).
  10. ↑ American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, 959 F. Supp. 2d 724 (S.D.N.Y., 2013).
  11. ↑ Rapisarda, Mark (2015). "Privacy, Technology, and Surveillance: NSA Bulk Collection and the End of the Smith v. Maryland Era". Gonzaga Law Review. 51 (1): 121–158 – via HeinOnline.
  12. ↑ Galicki, Alexander (2015). "The End of Smith v. Maryland: The NSA's Bulk Telephony Metadata Program and the Fourth Amendment in the Cyber Age". American Criminal Law Review. 52 (2): 375–414 – via HeinOnline.
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.