For the right to personal privacy to survive in America in this digital age, courts must be meticulous in applying longstanding privacy protections to new technology. This did not happen in an unfortunate ruling last month by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.The case concerned a drug conviction based on information about the defendant’s location that the government acquired from a cellphone he carried on a three-day road trip in a motor home. The data, apparently obtained with a phone company’s help, led to a warrantless search of the motor home and the seizure of incriminating evidence.
The majority opinion held that there was no constitutional violation of the defendant’s rights because he “did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data given off by his voluntarily procured pay-as-you-go cellphone.”The panel drew a distinction between its ruling and a ruling by the Supreme Court last January in United States v. Jones, which held that the placement of a hidden device on a suspect’s car without a valid warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.
The three-judge panel said that its case, in contrast, did not involve physical trespass on the suspect’s private property. The judges also asserted that the tracking in the case before them was not sufficiently “comprehensive” to be “unreasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes” and trigger the need for a warrant — even though the police tracked the defendant’s every move for three days, hardly a negligible time period.
The Jones case suggests that the Supreme Court’s future direction may be more protective of privacy in cases involving new and potentially invasive technologies. In two concurring opinions in that case, a majority of justices agreed that “longer-term” GPS monitoring impinged on expectations of privacy.As Justice Sonia Sotomayor stressed in her concurrence, “GPS monitoring generates a precise, comprehensive record of a person’s public movements that reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.”
If anything, tracking someone using cellphone GPS capabilities is even more invasive than following someone with a GPS device attached to a car since it allows for 24/7 coverage. Most people carry their phones wherever they go, including into their homes.The circuit court panel majority concluded that because the defendant’s phone emitted information that could be picked up by law enforcement agents, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy and thus no warrant was needed to conduct the surveillance.
This was at odds with yet another Supreme Court ruling, in 2001, involving a thermal-imaging device aimed at a private home from a public street.Carrying a cellphone should not obliterate privacy rights or the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. The full Sixth Circuit should grant a pending request for a rehearing and reverse the panel’s damaging ruling.
Jason Charles Matey, Esq.