Supreme Court to Decide Limits on Police Cellphone Tracking

By Brian J. Lamoureux

May 31, 2018

This term, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the police can track the real-time cellphone-based location and movements of a suspect using the suspect’s cellphone records. In Carpenter v. U.S., the police obtained Mr. Carpenter’s cellphone number from one of his alleged accomplices. Using this cellphone number, the police were able to obtain Mr. Carpenter’s “transactional records,” which permitted the police to piece together 12,898 pieces of data from the cell towers that allegedly showed Mr. Carpenter’s movements over a period of four months.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could have far-reaching consequences, especially as more and more automobiles contain real-time GPS location data and self-driving cars come onto our roadways. This case poses serious questions that courts must struggle with: do drivers or cellphone users have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their movements, or is this data fair game for police or other government entities? Are consumers even aware of or know about the vast amounts of data being gathered about them in the background of their apps, devices, and cars? Would consumers behave differently – or make different product choices – if they knew that someday the police could retrace their movements simply based upon the data stored on their phone or in their cars?

These are real and complex questions posed by this case, and it will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court decides the issue. If the Court decides in favor of the government, it could reinvigorate the privacy debate we recently saw with Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony. But, for now, it seems that the tension between technology and privacy is as stark as ever. Only time will tell how and whether courts will strike a balance between legitimate police interests and the privacy rights of those of us who don’t pay much attention to the staggering amounts of digital bread crumbs we leave behind.

Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only. This blog is not legal advice and you should not use or rely on it as such. By reading this blog or our website, no attorney-client relationship is created. We do not provide legal advice to anyone except clients of the firm who have formally engaged us in writing to do so. This blog post may be considered attorney advertising in certain jurisdictions. The jurisdictions in which we practice license lawyers in the general practice of law, but do not license or certify any lawyer as an expert or specialist in any field of practice.

Recent Posts

THE BENEFIT OF PASS-THROUGH ENTITIES

Why do pass-through entities such as LLCs taxed as partnerships remain the entity of choice for most closely held businesses? The primary benefit of operating a business through a pass-through entity, such as an LLC taxed as a partnership, is that the income generated...

APPLE’S CONCERNING NEW TEXT MESSAGE FEATURE

Apple recently released iOS16 for the iPhone. This newest release allows iPhone users running iOS16 to edit and unsend text messages sent between other iOS16 users. While this may be welcome news for those of us who make embarrassing typos or otherwise hit the send...