aGameOfThrones
08-23-2011, 09:49 PM
Beating the man at his own game on Monday, a federal judge from the Eastern District of New York denied the US government's application asking Verizon Wireless to hand over 113 days of customer location data
http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/23/new-york-judge-denies-government-warrant-for-verizon-location-da/
http://ia600309.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.nyed.312774/gov.uscourts.nyed.312774.6.0.pdf
The fiction that the vast majority of the American population consents to warrantless government access to the records of a significant share of their movements by "choosing" to carry a cell phone must be rejected. In light of drastic developments in technology, the Fourth Amendment doctrine must evolve to preserve cell-phone user's reasonable expectation of privacy in cumulative cell-site-location records.
This court, however, does not set out here to "establish far-reaching premises that define the existence, and extent, of privacy expectations." Id. (internal citations omitted)). Rather, it only seeks to resolve the question before it: whether the request for at least 113 days of cumulative cell-site-location records for an individual's cell phone constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. (Sealed Appl. at I, 5.) The court concludes that it does. Consequently, the information sought by tlie Government may not be obtained without a warrant and the requisite showing of probable cause. The Government's motion is denied without prejudice to any future applications seeking to obtain the requested information through a warrant pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 2703(c)(l)(a) and Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 41.
IV. CONCLUSION
While the government's monitoring of our thoughts may be the archetypical Orwellian
intrusion, the government's surveillance of our movements over a considerable time period through new technologies, such as the collection of cell-site-location records, without the protections of the Fourth Amendment, puts our country far closer to Oceania than our Constitution permits. It is time that the courts begin to address whether revolutionary changes in technology require changes to existing Fourth Amendment doctrine. Here, the court concludes only that existing Fourth Amendment doctrine must be interpreted so as to afford constitutional protection to the cumulative cell-site-location records requested here. For the foregoing reasons
the Government's motion for orders pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703(c){l) and (d) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
//
http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/23/new-york-judge-denies-government-warrant-for-verizon-location-da/
http://ia600309.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.nyed.312774/gov.uscourts.nyed.312774.6.0.pdf
The fiction that the vast majority of the American population consents to warrantless government access to the records of a significant share of their movements by "choosing" to carry a cell phone must be rejected. In light of drastic developments in technology, the Fourth Amendment doctrine must evolve to preserve cell-phone user's reasonable expectation of privacy in cumulative cell-site-location records.
This court, however, does not set out here to "establish far-reaching premises that define the existence, and extent, of privacy expectations." Id. (internal citations omitted)). Rather, it only seeks to resolve the question before it: whether the request for at least 113 days of cumulative cell-site-location records for an individual's cell phone constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. (Sealed Appl. at I, 5.) The court concludes that it does. Consequently, the information sought by tlie Government may not be obtained without a warrant and the requisite showing of probable cause. The Government's motion is denied without prejudice to any future applications seeking to obtain the requested information through a warrant pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 2703(c)(l)(a) and Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 41.
IV. CONCLUSION
While the government's monitoring of our thoughts may be the archetypical Orwellian
intrusion, the government's surveillance of our movements over a considerable time period through new technologies, such as the collection of cell-site-location records, without the protections of the Fourth Amendment, puts our country far closer to Oceania than our Constitution permits. It is time that the courts begin to address whether revolutionary changes in technology require changes to existing Fourth Amendment doctrine. Here, the court concludes only that existing Fourth Amendment doctrine must be interpreted so as to afford constitutional protection to the cumulative cell-site-location records requested here. For the foregoing reasons
the Government's motion for orders pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703(c){l) and (d) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
//