The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 President’s Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
    • Media
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 President’s Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
    • Media
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Media
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
      • Summit Sponsors
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Master Class 5.0 Trial Academy 2021
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

Circuit Split: Warrant Required for Cell Phone Location Information

Posted on April 21, 2015 by Larry Bodine

warrant cell recordsThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that a warrant is required to get historical cell phone information.  It said that obtaining a civil court order under the Stored Communications Act (SCA) violates the Fourth Amendment.

Circuit split

The circuit court highlighted the conflict between the circuit courts on the constitutionality of obtaining information without a warrant. Earlier this year in U.S. v. Davis, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, relying on Fifth Circuit case law, upheld the use of cell phone records to convict a man of armed robbery.

Aaron Graham and Eric Jordan were convicted for a series of six armed robberies of several businesses in the Baltimore City, Maryland that occurred during January 17, 2011 to February 5, 2011.

Witness testimony and surveillance video revealed Graham wearing the same clothing during the robberies and driving a dark-colored Ford F-150 pickup truck.

After their arrests, police obtained search warrants for Graham and Jordan’s residences, and the F-150 truck.  The searches produced guns, cash, jewelry and two cell phones matched to Graham and Jordan.

Court orders obtained without probable cause

The government obtained disclosure of cell site location information (CSLI) for calls and texts transmissions for the phones for a 221-day period without warrants. The CSLI’s were used at trial to establish Graham and Jordan’s “locations at various times before and after most of the charged robberies”

On appeal, Graham and Jordan filed a motion to suppress the use of the CSLI’s at trial, arguing that obtaining them without a warrant based on probable cause “was an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.”

The district court denied the motion, holding that it was not an unreasonable search and that the “good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule justified admission of the CSLI.”

Fifth and 11th Circuit Courts do not require a warrant

The 11th Circuit court ruled that a warrant is not required because cell phone subscribers know and voluntarily allow cell phones to submit signals and location information when the phone is used.

See also: 11th Circuit Court Rules No Warrant Needed For Police to Get Cell Records

The Fourth Circuit court disagreed with the Fifth and 11th Circuit courts, stating “[p]eople cannot be deemed to have volunteered to forfeit expectations of privacy by simply seeking active participation in society through use of their cell phones.”

Orders upheld on good-faith exception

The court determined that “law enforcement violates the Fourth Amendment when it acts without a warrant to obtain an individual’s long-term CSLI,” and “may no longer rely on the [SCA] statute to justify an election not to secure a warrant for this information.”

The court explained, however, that because it lacked case authority suggesting the information obtained in the location records was unconstitutional, the government reasonably relied on the Stored Communications Act (SCA) in obtaining the CSLI’s without a warrant, affirming the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress.

Supreme Court may resolve Circuit split

See also: No More Cell Phone Searches Without a Search Warrant

The ACLU filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking review of the 11th Circuit opinion in Davis and filed an amicus brief in this case.

“Today’s opinion is a full-throated defense of Fourth Amendment privacy rights in the digital age,” said Nathan Freed Wessler, staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Requiring a warrant for access to this information is an important protection against unjustified government intrusions.”

The cases are U.S. v. Graham, case number 12-4659 and U.S. v. Jordan, case number 12-4825 in the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Posted in Blog, Civil Rights, Criminal Law / DUI

Comments are closed.

News Categories

Subscribe to Blog and VFJ via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog, the Voice for Justice and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that the United States has[Read More...]
Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

Bingen, Wash.-based Insitu, a Boeing subsidiary, has agreed to pay $25 million to settle allegations that it used recycl[Read More...]
Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

DEUTSCHE Bank AG agreed to pay US$130 million to settle criminal and civil charges that it bribed foreign officials and manip[Read More...]
Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

Boeing has agreed to pay just over $2.5 billion to resolve a federal charge of “criminal misconduct” for how its [Read More...]
Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

The mass exodus of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's top staff over accusations of bribery against their former boss has le[Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.