Legal News

Court Rules for Warrantless Use of Cell Phone Location Data
Download PDF
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

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.

  
What
Where


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.

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!!




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.





 

RELEVANT JOBS

DEPUTY STAFF COUNSEL / ATTORNEY

USA-CA-Auburn

JOIN OUR OUTSTANDING TEAM OF PROFESSIONALS! DEPUTY STAFF COUNSEL / ATTORNEY $129,615 - $165,42...

Apply now

Associate Attorney

USA-CA-Rohnert Park

Zimmerman Pavone LLP is looking for an attorney admitted to practice in California who is inter...

Apply now

Labor & Employment Partner in Houston, Austin or Dallas (Work From Home)

USA-TX-Houston

Culhane Meadows PLLC, one of the largest non-traditional distributed law firms in the country, ...

Apply now

Labor & Employment Group partner in Dallas, Austin or Houston (Work From Home)

USA-TX-Dallas

Culhane Meadows PLLC, one of the largest non-traditional distributed law firms in the country, is...

Apply now

BCG FEATURED JOB

Locations:

Keyword:



Search Now

Personal Injury Litigator

USA-VA-Fairfax

Northern Virginia office of our client is seeking a personal injury litigator with 4+ years of stron...

Apply Now

Associate Attorney

USA-CA-Larkspur

Larkspur office of our client seeks an associate attorney with 4-6 years of experience/background pr...

Apply Now

Associate Attorney

USA-MI-Bloomfield Hills

Bloomfield Hills office of a BCG Attorney Search Top Ranked Law Firm seeks an associate attorney wit...

Apply Now

SEARCH IN ARCHIVE

To Top