Samsung Argues over Inflated Patent Damages
Samsung Argues over Inflated Patent Damages
Former Deutsche Bank Salesman Admitted to Bribery
Former Deutsche Bank Salesman Admitted to Bribery
U.S. High Court Upholds Michigan Affirmative Action Ban
U.S. High Court Upholds Michigan Affirmative Action Ban
Supreme Court Rules Michigan Affirmative Ban is Constitutional
Supreme Court Rules Michigan Affirmative Ban is Constitutional
Your profile matches an open legal position. Apply now!
Job Listings

Court Rules for Warrantless Use of Cell Phone Location Data

On Friday, in a blow to privacy activists, U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle ruled during a retrial that in a specific case, prosecutors did not infringe the law by collecting cell phone data of the location of an accused with court approval but without a warrant.

 

The judge held that the prosecutors had acted in good faith, and that courts in the past have permitted law enforcement officials to review historical cell-phone data through a court order, but without accompanying warrant, and that in such cases there was no reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

In the instant case, Antoine Jones was found guilty in January 2008 of conspiring to distribute cocaine. Law enforcement officers used a GPS device to track the movements of his car during the investigation.



Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!


 

However, in January 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that placing a GPS device on the car of Jones without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment rights of protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

 

The Supreme Court ordered a retrial.

 

During the retrial, prosecutors used the records of cell towers to which Jones’s cell phone had been connected to at the beginning and end of each call he made. The records were obtained through a court order made in 2005.

 

In March, Jones’s lawyers filed a motion arguing that obtaining the cell-phone data without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. However, Judge Huvelle noted that the court did not require to decide whether the state had violated the Fourth Amendment, as the nature of the law was unsettled in 2005, and agents had reason to believe that they were not committing any violation.

 

Possibly, this is not a broad interpretation of the law, but should be confined to the instant case, as it decided on an event that happened much before the Supreme Court spelled out the law in the matter.

Did you like this? Share it:
Court Rules for Warrantless Use of Cell Phone Location Data by

Tagged: , , , ,

Posted by on December 20, 2012. Filed under Legal News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.