A Maryland appeals court affirmed that police must obtain search warrants before using Stingrays. (Photo: Tom Woodward/flickr/cc)
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, toldThe 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."
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
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, toldThe 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, toldThe 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.