Term: 2017
Docket: 16-402
Carpenter v. United States
- Pro
16-402 CARPENTER V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: 819 F.3d 880 CERT. GRANTED 6/5/2017 QUESTION PRESENTED: In this case, as in thousands of cases each year, the government sought and obtained the historical cell phone location data of a private individual pursuant to a disclosure order under the Stored Communications Act (SCA) rather than by securing a warrant. Under the SCA, a disclosure order does not require a finding of probable cause. Instead, the SCA authorizes the issuance of a disclosure order whenever the government "offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe" that the records sought "are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation." 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d). As a result, the district court never made a probable cause finding before ordering Petitioner's service provider to disclose months' worth of Petitioner's cell phone location records. A divided panel of the Sixth Circuit held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in these location records, relying in large part on four-decade-old decisions of this Court. The Question Presented is: Whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cell phone records revealing the location and movements of a cell phone user over the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 14-1572
In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court examined whether law enforcement's acquisition of historical cell phone records providing a comprehensive chronicle of the user’s past movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. The case involved Timothy Ivory Carpenter who was convicted for multiple robberies in 2011 based on cellphone location data obtained by police without a warrant. In June 2018, in a landmark decision, the court ruled 5-4 that accessing such information is indeed considered as conducting a search and thus requires obtaining warrants from courts beforehand to avoid violating an individual's right against unreasonable searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment. This ruling significantly impacted digital privacy rights, acknowledging that individuals have reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their physical movements captured through digital data.
In the dissenting opinion for Carpenter v. United States, Justice Kennedy argued that individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in cell-site location information (CSLI) because they voluntarily share this data with third parties - their wireless carriers. He contended that obtaining CSLI without a warrant does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment and therefore doesn't violate any constitutional rights. Furthermore, he believed that the majority's decision could disrupt many common investigative practices used by law enforcement agencies and potentially hinder their ability to protect public safety effectively. Justice Alito also dissented, arguing against creating new protections for digital age data when existing laws can be adapted as needed.
