Legal News

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

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.


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.


Interesting Legal Sites You May Like




Search Now

Corporate, Mergers and Acquisitions and Securities Associate Attorney

USA-NY-New York City

New York City office of our client seeks corporate, mergers and acquisitions and securities associat...

Apply Now

Business Litigation Attorney

USA-CA-Santa Monica

Santa Monica office of our client seeks business litigation attorney with 1-3 years of experience. T...

Apply Now

Intellectual Property Litigation / Enforcement Associate Attorney

USA-CA-San Francisco

San Francisco office of our client seeks intellectual property litigation / enforcement associate at...

Apply Now

Eminent Domain Attorney


Richmond office of our client seeks eminent domain attorney with 5+ years of experience. The candida...

Apply Now


Hotline & Training Managing Attorney (IMMIGRATION)

USA-NY-New York City

The Hotline & Training Services Managing Attorney will guide, develop, and supervise the Hotline sta...

Apply now

Associate Attorney


A civil plaintiff’s law firm is hiring for an associate attorney, preferably with strong resea...

Apply now

Associate Attorney

USA-TX-San Antonio

One of Texas\'s largest Personal Injury Law firm seeks a highly motivated associate attorney with 3-...

Apply now

Associate Attorney


One of Texas\'s largest Personal Injury Law firm seeks a highly motivated associate attorney with 3-...

Apply now


To Top