On July 2018, Carpenter V. States case was handed down. Supreme Court of the United States, held that the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution rules out contradictory search obtaining mobile location data and therefore needs a warrant backed by a probable cause (Chaudhari & Prasad, 2019). Timothy Carpenter sought an order claiming that his rights had been violated under the Fourth Amendment when the cellular location data was obtained by law enforcement when his cellular location data records for the period when robberies occurred. A series of thefts occurred at T- mobiles and RadioShack stores in 2011, and this led to the defendants’ conviction.
The crime scene was in Ohio and Michigan, the USA at T-Mobile and RadioShack stores. Police officers arrested four men associated with the crime. Among the arrested men, one gave a confession which had mobile numbers of some of his accomplices. Federal prosecutors used the cellphone numbers provided to apply for mobile records under the Stored Communication Act, 1994 (Chaudhari & Prasad, 2019). As a result of the investigation, Timothy Carpenter was among the individuals whose records were obtained (Chaudhari & Prasad, 2019). From the application done by the prosecutors, federal magistrate judges issued orders authorizing wireless carriers to generate CSIL for Carpenter’s mobile “at the start of the call and its end for both outgoing and incoming calls” during four months when robberies occurred.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The information received by prosecutors indicated that there was an average of 101 location points per day and 12,898 location points within the four months on Carpenter’s movements (Roberts, 2019). Consequently, the Carpenter was charged with six counts of carrying a firearm during violence crime at the federal district court and also six counts of robbery, and this led to his conviction (Chaudhari & Prasad, 2019). Timothy appealed his conviction arguing that using the evidence from CSIL violates the fourth amendment, which protects the rights of individuals to secure their properties as well as personal information from unreasonable searches. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeals for the Sixth Circuit holding that “Carpenter lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location information collected by the FBI because he had shared the information with his wireless carriers” (Chaudhari & Prasad, 2019) . After the dismissal, from Court of Appeal, Carpenter appealed to the US Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Roberts, together with Justice Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan, and Ginsburg, delivered the Court opinion. The main issue for the Supreme Court was to find out whether accessing mobile location data records constituted an “investigation” for the Fourth Amendment, and if the search was constitutional (Roberts, 2019). The US Supreme Court final opinion updated protection of the Fourth Amendment for the digital era.
In a 5-4 ruling , the law enforcement did not get any warrant supported by possible cause before searching Carpenter’s mobile data location records. The Court decided in Carpenter vs. the United States that the law enforcement, in general, requires a warrant to acquire information for mobile site location, which is generated automatically anytime a cellphone connects to a cell tower and wireless carriers stores it for many years (Roberts, 2019). The court ruling represented a win for individual digital privacy and, while narrow, implications may be there for all kind of information held by third parties including text messages, bank records, browsing data and emails (Roberts, 2019). Law enforcement has no right to obtain personal information without a warrant in some instances. The Court also accepts that mobile phones are essential for modern life but not voluntary and that their technology constitutes unique precedence for the law.
Justice Kennedy joined by Justices Alito and Thomas delivered a dissenting opinion expressing a concern that the Supreme Court was evading from the Fourth Amendment precedent, which could be of help in guiding the Court in finding that there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment (Roberts, 2019). According to Kennedy, there should be no difference between business records and CSIL data. From the Miller case, Law enforcement has the right to get records of a suspect without the implication of the Fourth Amendment.
Another dissenting opinion delivered by Justice Thomas states that; Fourth Amendment did not apply because CSIL records were the networks property and the “search” did not take place in respect of Timothy’s property. Besides, Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, delivered a dissenting opinion stating that the Stored Communication Act was not in search of Carpenters private information, but it was a request for a third party (Roberts, 2019). The idea added that it is revolutionary to treat obtained CSIL records as a search because it violates both Supreme Court Precedent and original understanding of the Fourth Amendment.
In conclusion, the US Supreme Courts final decision shows that the Fourth Amendments aims at protecting people’s privacy. Therefore, it is a must for law enforcement to a warrant before searching mobile data location information records. I cannot entirely agree with Supreme Court’s opinion because incase an individual commits a crime, and there is no warrant, the law enforcement cannot get a piece of clear evidence. The Supreme Court could have instead left the door open for the law enforcement to carry out a “search” in case of any crime committed.
References
Chaudhari, N., & Prasad, S. K. (2019). Carpenter v. United States: State Surveillance and Citizen Privacy. NALSAR Stud. L. Rev. , 13 , 129.
Roberts, C. J. (2019). Carpenter v United States 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). W. St. UL Rev. , 46 , 177.
