Carpenter V. United States And Geolocation Tracking Cases
Background: Carpenter v. United States (2018)
Facts:
Timothy Carpenter was convicted of a series of robberies based on evidence obtained through cell-site location information (CSLI) collected by the FBI without a warrant. The government used several months’ worth of CSLI to place Carpenter near the crime scenes.
Legal Issue:
Does the government’s acquisition of CSLI from a third party without a warrant violate the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Supreme Court Holding:
Yes. The Court ruled 5-4 that accessing historical CSLI is a search under the Fourth Amendment, requiring a warrant based on probable cause.
Significance:
This ruling limited the government’s ability to obtain detailed location data without judicial oversight and set a precedent for privacy rights in the digital age.
Other Landmark Geolocation Tracking Cases
1. United States v. Jones (2012)
Facts:
Law enforcement attached a GPS tracking device to Antoine Jones’s vehicle without a valid warrant and tracked his movements for 28 days.
Legal Issue:
Whether installing and using a GPS tracking device on a vehicle constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court unanimously held that installing a GPS device and tracking someone’s vehicle constitutes a search, requiring a warrant.
Significance:
Established that prolonged physical surveillance via GPS requires a warrant, laying groundwork for later cases like Carpenter.
2. Riley v. California (2014)
Facts:
David Riley was arrested, and police searched his cellphone without a warrant, discovering incriminating evidence.
Legal Issue:
Can police search the contents of a cellphone without a warrant during an arrest?
Outcome:
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that police must obtain a warrant to search digital information on a cellphone.
Significance:
Though not about geolocation, Riley expanded digital privacy protections under the Fourth Amendment.
3. In re Application of the United States for Historical Cell-Site Data (2016)
Facts:
The government sought several months of CSLI without a warrant.
Legal Issue:
Whether accessing historical CSLI requires a warrant or only a court order under the Stored Communications Act.
Outcome:
Some courts required a warrant, others did not; this legal uncertainty set the stage for Carpenter.
Significance:
Highlighted the need for clear constitutional guidance on digital tracking, later resolved by Carpenter.
4. United States v. Kolsuz (2018, 9th Circuit)
Facts:
Authorities tracked Kolsuz’s phone location in real time without a warrant.
Legal Issue:
Does real-time geolocation tracking require a warrant under the Fourth Amendment?
Outcome:
The Ninth Circuit held that real-time cell-site location tracking constitutes a search, requiring a warrant.
Significance:
Extended Carpenter’s principles to real-time tracking, strengthening privacy protections.
5. United States v. Marquez (2020)
Facts:
Law enforcement obtained historical cell phone location data spanning several months without a warrant.
Legal Issue:
Application of Carpenter to prolonged historical location data.
Outcome:
The court suppressed the evidence, citing Carpenter, as the government lacked a warrant.
Significance:
Reinforced Carpenter’s requirement of a warrant for extended historical location data.
6. Commonwealth v. Augustine (Massachusetts, 2016)
Facts:
Police used cell phone tower data to track Augustine without a warrant.
Legal Issue:
Whether warrantless acquisition of CSLI violates the state constitution.
Outcome:
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a warrant is required.
Significance:
Showed how state courts apply stricter privacy protections than federal courts.
Summary Table
| Case Name | Year | Issue | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carpenter v. United States | 2018 | Warrant requirement for historical CSLI | Warrant required | Landmark ruling protecting digital privacy |
| United States v. Jones | 2012 | GPS tracking device on vehicle | Warrant required | Established GPS tracking as search |
| Riley v. California | 2014 | Warrant for cellphone search | Warrant required | Expanded digital privacy protections |
| United States v. Kolsuz | 2018 | Real-time cell phone tracking | Warrant required | Extended Carpenter to real-time tracking |
| United States v. Marquez | 2020 | Historical CSLI without warrant | Evidence suppressed | Reinforced Carpenter’s warrant standard |
| Commonwealth v. Augustine | 2016 | CSLI under state constitution | Warrant required | State-level enhanced privacy protections |
Overall Significance
These cases collectively strengthen privacy protections in the digital age, recognizing that modern location tracking is a powerful form of surveillance.
The Supreme Court in Carpenter recognized that CSLI reveals an intimate and detailed picture of a person’s life, thus deserving constitutional protection.
Courts continue to clarify whether real-time vs. historical tracking requires different legal standards.
State courts often apply stricter protections, reflecting evolving societal views on digital privacy.
RELATED Blog
0 comments