- Journal Archives
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
The efforts of the courts and their officials to bring the guilty to punishment, praiseworthy as they are, are not to be aided by the sacrifice of those great principles established by years of endeavor and suffering which have resulted in their embodiment in the fundamental law of the land. – Justice Day, Weeks v. United States, 1914.
California lawmakers are currently attempting to finalize the language of a new measure, SB 1434, which would require California law enforcement to obtain a warrant whenever it requests location information from an electronic device. The bill follows in the wake of a recent US Supreme Court case, US v. Jones (pdf), which held that, for the most part, federal law enforcement would need to obtain a warrant before affixing a GPS tracking device to a vehicle and monitoring it. The Jones court did not, however, rule on whether a person has a privacy right to data or information about their location. This distinction is crucial, and California is taking an important step to close the hole for any potential abuse by law enforcement.
There are several situations in which this new bill would apply. For example, law enforcement would need to obtain a warrant in order to request that a cell-phone provider track a phone’s physical location. This is usually done through cell-tower locational tracking. The bill would also apply to locational data stored in a phone’s memory, which many cellphones store, and which was the cause of a privacy outcry against Apple back in 2011.
However, in order to address concerns about exigent circumstances, the California Assembly added language that would allow for law enforcement to bypass the warrant requirement if there is insufficient time to obtain the warrant due to a potential threat of serious danger or bodily harm.
This bill will definitely be a win for privacy and Fourth Amendment fans, with the Electronic Fronteir Foundation strongly supporting it and urging the Governor to sign it. Unfortunately, Governor Brown vetoed a similar bill in 2011, citing the courts’ job to police this kind of actions, but privacy advocates remain optimistic that the bill will be signed into law. As Justice Alito noted in his Jones concurrence: “in circumstances involving dramatic technological change, the best solution to privacy concerns may be legislative.”
Hopefully California will lead the charge in defense of privacy rights. With recent decisions such as the Sixth Circuit’s which held that there is no right to locational privacy, we can only hope that courts and legislatures will heed Justice Alito’s advice.
– Brandon Trout
Recent Blog Posts
- Guest Post: Harnessing the Power of Fans in Sports Franchise Ownership through Crowdfunding
- Faceboculus: The Metaverse had a Kickstarter
- Heigl v. Duane Reed: A Battle for Publicity
- Weev Still Got a CFAA Problem: Andrew “Weev” Auernheimer’s Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Conviction Vacated
- Monday Morning JETLawg
- Crowdsourcing Disaster Relief
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government information security intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution