Warrant Required for Cell Phone Location Data

In the US a warrant is required for location information, according to a recent case and that ruling in that case may set an important precedent with regards to what checks and balances should prevail depending upon the 'facts' behind the request for it (location data):

arstechnica.com/tech-p...mpaign=rss
_________________
Institute for Digital Forensics (IDF) - LinkedIn
Mobile Telephone Examination Board (MTEB) - LinkedIn
Mobile Telephone Evidence & Forensics trewmte.blogspot.com
ForensicMobex now MTEB Linkedin Subgroup 

Greg,
I have yet to read the full decision, but it is my understanding that the Government was attempting to seek 113 days worth of cell site data on an indvidual because they believed he traveled outside the U.S.

I saw this comment attributed to the Judge in another article "Judge Garaufis said he has approved applications in the past for the records, but that he has changed his mind about their potential intrusiveness when applied to longer periods due to recent court decisions."

It would be interesting to know what the Judge might have thought/not thought or signed/not signed if the Government was seeking cell site data for a shorter period of time? If the statement is correct and the Judge based his decision on longer periods, I wonder if he would think cell site data on a target for 1 day or possibly 3 hours could be obtained with something less than a search warrant?

Obviosly this will need to be decided by the Supreme Court.

Cheers!
_________________
Ed

I'm not a cellular technology expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. 

Ed

It maybe my ignorance, but in the States does this Judge's ruling have to take account of public policy when dealing with the Fourth Amendment? Or is his ruling confined to merely a policy for one State within the Union?

I got that view having read the statement:

"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," he wrote. "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."

I thought (but maybe wrongly) perhaps the Judge was balancing US public policy concerns? That is, isn't there a duty of care upon your Judges to ensure when ruling a number of aspects require to be taken into consideration beyond that actual assertions mde associated with the law enforcement investigation itself?
_________________
Institute for Digital Forensics (IDF) - LinkedIn
Mobile Telephone Examination Board (MTEB) - LinkedIn
Mobile Telephone Evidence & Forensics trewmte.blogspot.com
ForensicMobex now MTEB Linkedin Subgroup 

Anyone interested in a survey of US legal opinions on this issue should read "Cell Site Location Evidence: A New Frontier in Cyber-Investigation", by Ken Wallentine. The link is here: www.aele.org/law/2011-02MLJ401.html . Ken provides a nice review of decisions from around the country. Ken also recommended that I read "No Place to Hide:First Amendment Protection for Location Privacy" byTheodore Claypoole, which you can find here: www.jdsupra.com/post/d...74c5673f45 .

Claypoole is making a First Amendment argument, which I think would be better placed in Fourth Amendment doctrine...and I think Ken agrees with me on that one. Still, Claypoole has some good material and sourcing in this article which is worth a look.
_________________
Todd Gabler\r\nRudiger Investigations, NMS\r\nUtah Agency #175\r\nPO Box 999\r\nSpringdale, UT 84767