- 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 Eleventh Circuit handed down a groundbreaking decision this past week, holding in United States v. Davis that the Fourth Amendment protects information about a person’s cell site data.
Cell site data reveals a cellphone’s physical address at call origination, duration, and termination. In Davis, that information was provided without a proper warrant to convict the defendant of several robberies. Building on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Jones, the Davis court held that police must show probable cause (and secure a warrant) to obtain such information.
The decision deviates from the Fifth Circuit’s ruling on the same issue last year in Smith v. Maryland. As a result of this circuit split, the issue may go to the Supreme Court to resolve.
The thrust of the Davis court’s 38-page decision is that because most people don’t realize that their cellphones can reveal their locations via cell towers, they have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” when carrying them around:
“While committing a crime is certainly not within a legitimate expectation of privacy, if the cell site location data could place him near those scenes, it could place him near any other scene. There is a reasonable privacy interest in being near the home of a lover, or a dispensary of medication, or a place of worship, or a house of ill repute.”
Fourth Amendment jurisprudence militates that the government obtain a warrant where a search would violate a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Nonetheless, the court declined to overturn Davis’ conviction under the “Leon exception” because the legal principle was not yet clear at the time of the investigation.
In Leon, the Supreme Court held that “when an officer acting with objective good faith has obtained a search warrant from a judge . . . and acted within its scope,” the fruits of that search should not be excluded, because exclusion under those facts “cannot logically contribute to the deterrence of Fourth Amendment violations.”
Although the police in Davis relied on a court order rather than a warrant (as in Leon), the Eleventh Circuit held that the difference was “semantic.”
Recent Blog Posts
- Is Streaming Speech?
- Does Tweaking Your Car’s Software Constitute Fair Use?
- Controlling the Uncontrollable: UK Taking the Driver’s Seat in Driverless Car Technology
- Obama’s Cybersecurity Executive Order: Private Sector Must Help Police the “Wild West”
- Qualcomm Settlement May Reconfigure the Smartphone Market in China
- Who Rightfully Owns the Village People’s YMCA?
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 intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution