Huge Win for Everyone With a Cellphone (and for the Fourth Amendment) at the Supreme Court

by | Jun 26, 2018

Huge Win for Everyone With a Cellphone (and for the Fourth Amendment) at the Supreme Court

by | Jun 26, 2018

In a blockbuster 5-4 decision issued today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that warrantless government tracking of cellphone users via their cellphone location records violates the Fourth Amendment. “A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere,” declared the majority opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts. “We decline to grant the state unrestricted access to a wireless carrier’s database of physical location information.”
The case is Carpenter v. United States. It arose after the after FBI obtained, without a search warrant, the cellphone records of a suspected armed robber named Timothy Carpenter. With those records, law enforcement officials identified the cell towers that handled his calls and then proceeded to trace back his whereabouts during the time periods in which his alleged crimes were committed. That information was used against Carpenter in court.
The central issue in the case was whether Carpenter had a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the information contained in those records, or whether he had forfeited such privacy protections by voluntarily sharing the information with his cellular service provider. As the Supreme Court put it in United States v. Miller (1976) and Smith v. Maryland (1979), “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.”
Read the rest at reason.com.

Our Books

Shop books published by the Libertarian Institute.

libetarian institute longsleeve shirt

Our Books

cb0cb1ef 3fcb 417d 80d8 4eef7bbd8290

Recent Articles

Recent

TGIF: On “Public Property”

TGIF: On “Public Property”

A dubious theory held by some libertarians has been knocking about. It goes something like this: The claim that government-controlled land is actually unowned—and thus not properly subject to government rulemaking—would lead to consequences that reasonable people...

read more
No, Your ‘Doggo’ Doesn’t Have Rights

No, Your ‘Doggo’ Doesn’t Have Rights

Whoever argues in favor of granting rights to animals, has first accepted that humans have rights and believes that animals must also be recognized as subjects of rights. And only someone who has a notion of what having rights means can meaningfully ask for this. Yet...

read more

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This