Page 41 - TPA Journal July August 2018
P. 41
numbers; the FBI then reviewed his call his wireless carriers. Given that cell phone
records to identify addi tional numbers that he users voluntarily convey cell-site data to their
had called around the time of the robberies. carriers as “a means of establishing
communication,” the court concluded that the
Based on that information, the prosecutors resulting business records are not entitled to
applied for court orders under the Stored Fourth Amendment protection.
Communications Act to obtain cell phone
records for petitioner Timothy Carpenter and The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he
several other suspects. That statute, as right of the people to be secure in their
amended in 1994, permits the Government to persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
compel the disclosure of certain unreasonable searches and seizures.” The
telecommunications records when it “offers “basic purpose of this Amendment,” our cases
specific and articulable facts showing that have recog nized, “is to safeguard the privacy
there are reasonable grounds to believe” that and security of individ uals against arbitrary
the records sought “are relevant and material invasions by governmental offi cials.” The
to an ongoing criminal investigation.” 18 U. S. Founding generation crafted the Fourth
C. §2703(d). Federal Magistrate Judges issued Amendment as a “response to the reviled
two orders directing Carpenter’s wireless ‘general warrants’ and ‘writs of assistance’ of
carriers—Metro PCS and Sprint—to disclose the colonial era, which allowed British officers
“cell/site sector [information] for [Carpenter’s] to rum mage through homes in an unrestrained
telephone[ ] at call origination and at call search for evi dence of criminal activity.” For
termination for incoming and outgoing calls” much of our history, Fourth Amendment
during the four-month period when the string search doctrine was “tied to common-law
of robberies occurred. Altogether the trespass” and focused on whether the
Govern ment obtained 12,898 location points Government “obtains information by physi -
cataloging Carpenter’s movements—an cally intruding on a constitutionally protected
average of 101 data points per day. area.” More recently, the Court has
recognized that “property rights are not the
Carpenter was charged with six counts of sole measure of Fourth Amendment
robbery … Prior to trial, Carpenter moved to violations.” Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U. S.
suppress the cell-site data provided by the 56, 64 (1992). In Katz v. United States, 389 U.
wireless carriers. He argued that the S. 347, 351 (1967),we established that “the
Government’s seizure of the records violated Fourth Amendment protects people, not
the Fourth Amendment because they had places,” and expanded our conception of the
been obtained without a warrant supported by Amendment to protect certain expectations of
probable cause. The District Court denied the privacy as well. When an individual “seeks to
motion. preserve something as private,” and his
expectation of privacy is “one that society is
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit prepared to recognize as reasonable,” we
affirmed. The court held that Carpenter have held that official intrusion into that
lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in private sphere generally quali fies as a search
the location infor mation collected by the FBI and requires a warrant supported by probable
because he had shared that information with cause.
July/August 2018 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 37
