The Court rejected the government\u2019s long-successful argument that when a person voluntarily lets a third party store data about him, the 4th Amendment does not protect him from the warrant less seizure of that data from the third party. This legal doctrine was established in the mid-70s. Today\u2019s ruling, the details of which can be read at SCOTUSBlog<\/a>, recognized that times and tech have changed dramatically.<\/p>\n \u201cThere is a world of difference between the limited types of personal information addressed\u201d by the old dogma, \u201cand the exhaustive chronicle of location information casually collected by wireless carriers today,\u201d the decision reads. Forty years ago, \u201cfew could have imagined a society in which a phone goes wherever its owner goes, conveying to the wireless carrier not just dialed digits, but a detailed and comprehensive record of the person\u2019s movements.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/span>The Court ruled that the vast amount of location data the FBI collected from Carpenter\u2019s phone company – over 13,000 data points spanning several months of his activities – painted such an intimate and extensive picture of his personal life that it deserved the 4th Amendment\u2019s protection against warrant less seizure. Therefor the location data could not be used to prosecute Carpenter.<\/p>\n The Carpenter ruling applies only to location data collected and stored by a cellular service provider. But the Court\u2019s reasoning will be applied to a virtually limitless range of cases in which third parties collect and store any type of data about an individual. Armed with this decision, privacy advocates can argue that all the personal data that Facebook, Google<\/a>, credit agencies, banks, et. al., collect about you is now off-limits to law enforcement unless it is obtained pursuant to a valid warrant issued by a court.<\/p>\n The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: \u201cThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.\u201d<\/p>\n Note that the Court did not overturn the third-party doctrine outright. Instead, the Court decided that there must be a limit to the scope of personal data obtainable without a warrant, and that it was clearly exceeded in Carpenter\u2019s case. Future rulings may decide that the government can use one data point, or a day\u2019s worth of data points, or some other measure of data\u2019s scope, without obtaining a warrant.<\/p>\n The limiting factor seems to be, \u201cDoes the scope of data collected amount to invasion of the person\u2019s privacy?\u201d If, for example, Carpenter\u2019s location data revealed that he (or his phone, at least) was regularly at a particular place at the same times a drug rehabilitation group held its meetings at the same place, it would be reasonable to infer that Carpenter was a drug addict in recovery. That inference, arguably, would be a private matter deserving of the 4th Amendment\u2019s protection, so data which supports the inference would have to be seized pursuant to a court order that complies with the 4th Amendment\u2019s requirements.<\/p>\n Yes, it\u2019s complicated, and there are many wrinkles to be ironed out case by case. But the government\u2019s long-standing position that \u201call your data are belong to us\u201d is no longer acceptable in court. This a huge victory for privacy rights in the United States!<\/p>\n As for Timothy Carpenter, he may be a hero to privacy advocates, but it seems he’s no angel. A description of his role as ringleader of a gang of armed robbers can be found on this page from Findlaw.com<\/a>. Carpenter was convicted and sentenced in April of 2014 to 116 years in prison, and even though he won his case at the Supreme Court, he will likely remain incarcerated.<\/p>\n That’s because of the “Good Faith Exception to Exclusionary Rule.” According to the Legal Information Institute<\/a>, The Exclusionary Rule bars the use at trial of evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful search. If officers had reasonable, good faith belief that they were acting according to legal authority, such as by relying on a search warrant that is later found to have been legally defective, the illegally seized evidence is still admissible under this rule.<\/p>\n The ACLU argued Carpenter\u2019s case before the SCOTUS, and deserves much of the credit for this victory.<\/p>\n We Are Not Out Of The Woods Folks.<\/strong><\/p>\n ARE WE SAFE?<\/strong> NO!<\/strong><\/p>\n Is this limited to just your cellphone? NO!<\/strong><\/p>\n This will take time. We need to remember our computers and tablets are vulnerable and use various Hot spot Wi-Fi \/cell signals and are not protected through this act, and are open for anyone to see with the right hack or so called Court Ordered Warrant! Be careful how you share your information be secure. But in the mean time, A followup story on how to make sure your privacy is secure thru your router and electronic devices coming soon.<\/p>\n Have a great week<\/p>\n Zi Staff<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Law enforcement agents need a search warrant before they can seize a person\u2019s historical location data stored by his cellular service provider, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled on June 22, 2018. The ruling was hailed as \u201cthe most consequential privacy decision of the digital age\u201d by the American Civil Liberties Union. … Continue reading ![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blog.zoha-islands.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/4th-Amendment-1024x585-300x171.jpg\")
<\/p>\nThe 4th Amendment and Limiting Factors<\/h2>\n