Carpenter v. United States - Warrants for Historical Cell Site Data

Last week the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decided what appears to be a landmark case regarding access to historical cell site data under the 4th Amendment. Justice Roberts authored the opinion for the Court, and formulated the issue in his opening statement: "This case presents the question whether the Government conducts a search under the Fourth Amendment when it accesses historical cell phone records that provide a comprehensive chronicle of the user’s past movements." Below is a summary and link for the case.

Carpenter v. United States

Timothy Carpenter (Defendant) was involved in a string of armed robberies and burglaries throughout Ohio and Michigan. Seven of his confederates identified him at trial as not only being involved in the crimes, but the leader of the group. In addition to the testimony of his cohorts, the FBI had utilized orders under the Stored Communications Act (SCA). SCA permits the government to compel the disclosure of certain telecommunications records when it “offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe” that the records sought “are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.” These reports gave historical location details about Defendant over an extended period of time, and put him in the locations of the crimes around the time they occurred. Defendant argued at trial, and on appeal, that the cell site data should be suppressed and excluded from trial since it was obtained without a warrant. The trial court denied the motion, and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in holding that Defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in those records as he voluntarily shared that data with the cell phone carriers for communication purposes.

The Court, in coming to the conclusion that a warrant would be necessary under these facts, likened this type of data more to constant GPS surveillance than other types of information gathering techniques. In fact, the Court stated that this type of activity is likely even more intrusive than GPS tracking on a vehicle, since people regularly leave their vehicles, but almost always carry their cell phones with them. The Court also held that this type of information, namely the past history of cell sites, does not fall under the "third party doctrine," which allows the government to obtain records from third parties that possess and own the information about the subject. The SCOTUS holding here is simply that a person possesses a reasonable expectation of privacy in historical cell site data.

There are 91 pages total in four different dissents written in the case by Justices Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch. The case hinges upon the Court's hesitance to apply previous standards and precedent to developing technology that makes it easier for the government to monitor people's lives, movements, and activities. See the link below for the full opinion for more.

Carpenter v. United States