Previous post Next post Feds’ Use of Fake Cell Tower: Did it Constitute a Search?

[kpitcher]

Federal authorities used a fake Verizon cellphone tower to zero in on a suspect’s wireless card, and say they were perfectly within their rights to do so, even without a warrant.

But the feds don’t seem to want that legal logic challenged in court by the alleged identity thief they nabbed using the spoofing device, known generically as a stingray. So the government is telling a court for the first time that spoofing a legitimate wireless tower in order to conduct surveillance could be considered a search under the Fourth Amendment in this particular case, and that its use was legal, thanks to a court order and warrant that investigators used to get similar location data from Verizon’s own towers.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/feds-fake-cell-phone-tower/


Until now, the U.S. government has asserted that the use of stingray devices does not violate Fourth Amendment rights, and Americans don’t have a legitimate expectation of privacy for data sent from their mobile phones and other wireless devices to a cell tower.

But authorities changed their tone in the Rigmaiden case after the defendant argued that using the device to locate a wireless aircard inside an apartment constituted a search, and therefore required a valid search warrant, which he asserts authorities didn’t have.

Slashdot has a discussion on this also http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/11/05/167209/did-feds-use-of-fake-cell-tower-constitute-a-search

[Yieu]

This is a very weird statement:

So the government is telling a court for the first time that spoofing a legitimate wireless tower in order to conduct surveillance could be considered a search under the Fourth Amendment in this particular case, and that its use was legal

It is weird because if this is considered a "search under the Fourth Amendment", then it would require a warrant, which the article states they did not have, which means the evidence must be thrown out. So to be consistent, they would have to argue that it was not a search at all, even though it is, so ultimately the evidence by law has to be thrown out.

This part doesn't make sense either:

As such, the government has maintained that the device is the equivalent of devices designed to capture routing and header data on e-mail and other internet communications, and therefore does not require a search warrant.

Unless that routing and header data was on an email that was addressed to the Federal government, they would most certainly need a warrant to discover if the email even exists let alone its routing and header information.

According to the Constitution, at least, which supersedes any other law that goes contrary to it.

Until now, the U.S. government has asserted that the use of stingray devices does not violate Fourth Amendment rights, and Americans don’t have a legitimate expectation of privacy for data sent from their mobile phones and other wireless devices to a cell tower.

...but that is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment, as the data between a device and a cell tower is protected by the 4th Amendment and thus we have a Constitutional legitimate expectation of privacy in that situation. Merely stating the 4th Amendment was not violated or that we don't have a legitimate expectation of privacy does not make either statements true.

They also argued that its use was covered by a court order and a warrant that authorities used to obtain near real-time tracking information directly from Verizon Wireless. A separate tracking warrant, prosecutors say, wasn’t necessary for its fake tower.

Unless that warrant listed this man's name, then it is a warrantless search and a violation of the 4th Amendment. It sounds like they are referencing a "general warrant," which are illegal under the 4th Amendment. A general warrant is non-specific and often do not name the "place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized," which is required by the 4th Amendment. Because general warrants are illegal, the warrant they reference must be null and void under the Constitution.