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 Presidents Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 Presidents Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
  • 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
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Trial Academy Master Class 6.0
    • The Business Of Law
    • 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

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Salmon Purchasers Reach an $85 Million Price Fixing Settlement

Salmon Purchasers Reach an $85 Million Price Fixing Settlement

According to Reuters, who had seen the proposed settlement after it was filed on 25 May, the settlement will r[Read More...]
Ford Agrees to Pay $19 Million to Settle False Fuel Economy and Payload Claims

Ford Agrees to Pay $19 Million to Settle False Fuel Economy and Payload Claims

Ford Motor Company as agreed to a $19.2 million multistate settlement among 40 attorneys general that concluded an investigat[Read More...]
Total Settlement in Surfside Condo Collapse Tops $1 Billion

Total Settlement in Surfside Condo Collapse Tops $1 Billion

The proposed settlement reached nearly a year after the catastrophic Surfside building collapse along the South Flo[Read More...]
UCLA Will Pay Nearly $700 Million in Abuse Lawsuits

UCLA Will Pay Nearly $700 Million in Abuse Lawsuits

The University of California system announced Tuesday it will pay nearly $375 million to more than 300 women who said they we[Read More...]
Things to Consider When You Sue an Insurance Provider

Things to Consider When You Sue an Insurance Provider

We are all too acquainted with insurance coverage in our everyday lives. According to Investopedia, everyone should have[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.