SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Court Explains Why Cops Cannot Use Cell Phones 'As Real-Time Tracking Devices'
'We conclude that people have a reasonable expectation that their cell phones will not be used as real-time tracking devices by law enforcement.'
Mar 31, 2016
The Maryland Special Court of Appeals, the state's second-highest court, on Wednesday issued a landmark opinion explaining an earlier ruling that police must obtain search warrants before using the controversial cell phone surveillance devices known as Stingrays.
"This is the first appellate opinion in the country to fully address the question of whether police must disclose their intent to use a cell site simulator to a judge and obtain a probable cause warrant," Nathan Freed Wessler, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology, told The Intercept.
Wednesday's opinion explains in detail why the court upheld a lower court ruling earlier this month, which rebuked the Baltimore Police Department for secretly using a cell site simulator to track down a murder suspect. Officers obtained a pen register, which required a lower standard of probable cause to collect phone data than a warrant, then deployed an advanced version of the Stingray known as a "Hailstorm," without informing the judge.
Last April, a Baltimore detective also revealed that the police department used the device more than 4,300 times since 2007.
"We conclude that people have a reasonable expectation that their cell phones will not be used as real-time tracking devices by law enforcement, and--recognizing that the Fourth Amendment protects people and not simply areas--that people have an objectively reasonable expectation and privacy in real-time cell phone location information," the panel wrote on Wednesday.
Stingrays operate by mimicking cell phone towers, tricking nearby devices into connecting with them and allowing law enforcement to track people's locations, monitor their communications, and even block incoming calls.
In its opinion, the court rejected the state's argument that anyone turning on a cell phone was "voluntarily" sharing their location with law enforcement.
Dan Kobrin, a public defender who argued the case before the court, told the Baltimore Sun that the decision is "enormous" and "will hopefully curb abuse of this device and bring it out into the sunlight."
Wessler added, "The court's opinion is a resounding defense of Fourth Amendment rights in the digital age."
"The court's withering rebuke of secret and warrantless use of invasive cell phone tracking technology shows why it is so important for these kinds of privacy invasions to be subjected to judicial review," Wessler said. "Other courts will be able to look to this opinion as they address rampant use of cell site simulators by police departments across the country."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
The Maryland Special Court of Appeals, the state's second-highest court, on Wednesday issued a landmark opinion explaining an earlier ruling that police must obtain search warrants before using the controversial cell phone surveillance devices known as Stingrays.
"This is the first appellate opinion in the country to fully address the question of whether police must disclose their intent to use a cell site simulator to a judge and obtain a probable cause warrant," Nathan Freed Wessler, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology, told The Intercept.
Wednesday's opinion explains in detail why the court upheld a lower court ruling earlier this month, which rebuked the Baltimore Police Department for secretly using a cell site simulator to track down a murder suspect. Officers obtained a pen register, which required a lower standard of probable cause to collect phone data than a warrant, then deployed an advanced version of the Stingray known as a "Hailstorm," without informing the judge.
Last April, a Baltimore detective also revealed that the police department used the device more than 4,300 times since 2007.
"We conclude that people have a reasonable expectation that their cell phones will not be used as real-time tracking devices by law enforcement, and--recognizing that the Fourth Amendment protects people and not simply areas--that people have an objectively reasonable expectation and privacy in real-time cell phone location information," the panel wrote on Wednesday.
Stingrays operate by mimicking cell phone towers, tricking nearby devices into connecting with them and allowing law enforcement to track people's locations, monitor their communications, and even block incoming calls.
In its opinion, the court rejected the state's argument that anyone turning on a cell phone was "voluntarily" sharing their location with law enforcement.
Dan Kobrin, a public defender who argued the case before the court, told the Baltimore Sun that the decision is "enormous" and "will hopefully curb abuse of this device and bring it out into the sunlight."
Wessler added, "The court's opinion is a resounding defense of Fourth Amendment rights in the digital age."
"The court's withering rebuke of secret and warrantless use of invasive cell phone tracking technology shows why it is so important for these kinds of privacy invasions to be subjected to judicial review," Wessler said. "Other courts will be able to look to this opinion as they address rampant use of cell site simulators by police departments across the country."
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
The Maryland Special Court of Appeals, the state's second-highest court, on Wednesday issued a landmark opinion explaining an earlier ruling that police must obtain search warrants before using the controversial cell phone surveillance devices known as Stingrays.
"This is the first appellate opinion in the country to fully address the question of whether police must disclose their intent to use a cell site simulator to a judge and obtain a probable cause warrant," Nathan Freed Wessler, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology, told The Intercept.
Wednesday's opinion explains in detail why the court upheld a lower court ruling earlier this month, which rebuked the Baltimore Police Department for secretly using a cell site simulator to track down a murder suspect. Officers obtained a pen register, which required a lower standard of probable cause to collect phone data than a warrant, then deployed an advanced version of the Stingray known as a "Hailstorm," without informing the judge.
Last April, a Baltimore detective also revealed that the police department used the device more than 4,300 times since 2007.
"We conclude that people have a reasonable expectation that their cell phones will not be used as real-time tracking devices by law enforcement, and--recognizing that the Fourth Amendment protects people and not simply areas--that people have an objectively reasonable expectation and privacy in real-time cell phone location information," the panel wrote on Wednesday.
Stingrays operate by mimicking cell phone towers, tricking nearby devices into connecting with them and allowing law enforcement to track people's locations, monitor their communications, and even block incoming calls.
In its opinion, the court rejected the state's argument that anyone turning on a cell phone was "voluntarily" sharing their location with law enforcement.
Dan Kobrin, a public defender who argued the case before the court, told the Baltimore Sun that the decision is "enormous" and "will hopefully curb abuse of this device and bring it out into the sunlight."
Wessler added, "The court's opinion is a resounding defense of Fourth Amendment rights in the digital age."
"The court's withering rebuke of secret and warrantless use of invasive cell phone tracking technology shows why it is so important for these kinds of privacy invasions to be subjected to judicial review," Wessler said. "Other courts will be able to look to this opinion as they address rampant use of cell site simulators by police departments across the country."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.