• Menu
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

Free Initial Consultations – Call today (559) 222-5800

dui lawyer fresno

Fresno DUI Attorney & Criminal Defense Lawyer

  • Practice Areas
    • DUI Defense
      • Boating Under the Influence
      • Marijuana DUI Defense
      • Underage DUI Defense
    • Criminal Defense
    • Personal Injury
      • Motor Vehicle Accident
    • Domestic Violence
    • Drug Crimes
    • Expungement
  • About
  • Resources
    • California DUI Laws
    • Blog
  • Contact Us
  • Practice Areas
    • DUI Defense
      • Boating Under the Influence
      • Marijuana DUI Defense
      • Underage DUI Defense
    • Criminal Defense
    • Personal Injury
      • Motor Vehicle Accident
    • Domestic Violence
    • Drug Crimes
    • Expungement
  • About
  • Resources
    • California DUI Laws
    • Blog
  • Contact Us

Federal Court Rules No Warrant is Needed to Obtain Cell Phone Records

Home / Blog / Federal Court Rules No Warrant is Needed to Obtain Cell Phone Records

July 31, 2013 //  by Gregory Fox

HOUSTON — Authorities only need a court order and not a more stringent search warrant to obtain cellphone records that can be used to track a person’s movements, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an order by a Houston federal judge who had said cellphone data is constitutionally protected from intrusion and can only be acquired with a search warrant.

In 2011, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes had upheld a magistrate judge’s 2010 ruling that had denied a request by federal authorities in three separate criminal investigations to compel cellphone companies to provide — without a search warrant — 60 days of records for several phones.

In overturning Hughes’ order, the appeals court in New Orleans said such data is a business record that belongs to the cellphone provider. It also said its collection by authorities does not have to meet a probable cause standard as outlined under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unlawful search and seizure and requires a search warrant.

“We understand the cellphone users may reasonably want their location information to remain private … But the recourse for these desires is in the market or the political process: in demanding that service providers do away with such records … or in lobbying elected representatives to enact statutory protections. The Fourth Amendment, safeguarded by the courts, protects only reasonable expectations of privacy,” the three-judge panel wrote in its 2-1 decision.

The cellphone data authorities had requested was being sought under the Stored Communications Act, part of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act.

The appeals court said under the Stored Communications Act, authorities have the option of obtaining a court order — which has a lower legal standard than a search warrant. With a court order, authorities only have to demonstrate there are “reasonable grounds” to believe the information would be relevant to an investigation.

Unlike the National Security Agency’s recently publicized program that seized phone records in bulk through court orders approved by a secret court, the cellphone records sought in this case related to specific investigations and their seizure had to be approved through regular and established legal procedures.

Angela Dodge, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Houston, which had fought Hughes’ order, said her office was pleased by Tuesday’s ruling.

“We are gratified that the court found we acted in a manner consistent with the law at the time. We felt we interpreted the law correctly and welcome the agreement of the 5th Circuit,” Dodge said in an emailed statement.

In court documents, prosecutors had argued that since such cellphone data are actually business records owned by the providers, customers have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Officials with the American Civil Liberties Union, which had filed legal briefs in the case asking that the rulings by Hughes and the magistrate judge be upheld, said they were disappointed with the 5th Circuit’s decision.

“This ruling fails to recognize that Americans do in fact have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cellphone location information. Where you go can reveal a great deal about your life, and people don’t think that carrying a cellphone around means that someone can get a detailed record of their movement for days or even months on end,” said Catherine Crump, a staff attorney with the ACLU. “The government should not be able to access this personal, sensitive information without getting a warrant based on probable cause. Unfortunately, the 5th Circuit’s decision allows exactly that.”

Federal and state courts have been divided over the issue.

Earlier this month, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled all law enforcement officers in that state must get a search warrant based on probable cause if they want access to cellphone locating data.

Earlier this year, both Maine and Montana passed legislation requiring authorities to obtain a search warrant to get location information from a person’s cellphone.

Crump said she believes this issue will probably have to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“This question is one of crucial significance to every American that carries a cellphone,” she said.

Category: Blog

Previous Post: « What is Possession of a Controlled Substance?
Next Post: 1 in 3 pedestrians who died in 2011 was walking drunk »

Primary Sidebar

Search posts

Request your free initial consultation

If you have any questions or would like to schedule your free initial consultation please call (559) 222-5800 or fill out this form and we will contact you as soon as possible.











    Related Posts

    Supreme Court limits police searches of cellphones, If there is a warrant out for my arrest what should I do?, Fresno driver shouldn’t be ticketed for using map app, court rules, Cell Phone Accidents
    This website provides general information only. It should not be relied upon as legal advice. The law is constantly changing and differs from location to location. Applicability of the law is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case. You should consult an attorney about your particular situation. Transmission of this information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute an attorney–client relationship between the sender and receiver. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

    If you have any questions, or would like to schedule your free initial consultation, please contact us today at (559) 222-5800. Hablamos español.

    Footer

    About

    Gregory W. Fox provides DUI, criminal defense, and personal injury representation throughout Fresno and the greater Central Valley of California including Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus, Tulare, and Tuolumne counties.

    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter

    Contact Us

    The Law Office of Gregory W. Fox
    191 West Shaw Avenue, Suite 208
    Fresno, California 93704

    Phone: (559) 222-5800

    FAX: (559) 222-5801

    Hours:

    1. Monday–Thursday 8AM–5PM
    2. Friday 8AM–12PM
    3. Saturday–Sunday 9AM–4PM

    Get Directions

    Practice Areas

    • DUI Defense
    • Criminal Defense
    • Drug Crimes
    • Domestic Violence
    • Expungement
    • Personal Injury

    Site Footer

    • Top Criminal Defense Attorney in Fresno
    • Lawyer Gregory Fox | Featured Attorney Criminal Defense

    • Copyright © 2023
    • The Law Office of Gregory W. Fox
    • Privacy Policy