Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

"The Fourth Circuit took the third party doctrine further than any case we've seen so far," wrote the Electronic Frontier Foundation. (Photo: uditha wickramanayaka/flickr/cc)

Privacy Takes Major Hit as Court Rules No Warrant Needed for Cell Location Data

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals used the 'third-party doctrine' to rule that cellphone location data is not protected by the Fourth Amendment

Nadia Prupis

In a major setback for privacy advocates, a U.S. appeals court on Tuesday ruled that cellphone location data is not protected by the Fourth Amendment and can be collected without a warrant.

By a 12-3 vote, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia upheld what is known as a third-party doctrine, which states that consumers who willingly give information to outside parties—like telecommunications companies—have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" for that data, regardless of what it reveals. The case is United States v. Graham, in which two defendants were tracked by police without warrants for several months in 2010 and 2011 as part of an armed robbery investigation.

The ACLU discovered in 2015 that the collected data revealed information that went beyond the scope of the case—including that the wife of defendant Aaron Graham was pregnant.

And as the Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff attorney Jennifer Lynch noted in a blog post on Tuesday, "the Fourth Circuit took the third party doctrine further than any case we've seen so far."

Lynch wrote:

The court held that it didn’t matter if cell site location information could reveal sensitive information about our lives; it didn’t matter how many days worth of data the government got from the service provider; and it didn’t even matter whether we had any idea the phone was generating the data or had any real control over when or where the phone generated data. Purely because that data was shared with a service provider, the Fourth Amendment didn’t protect it.

[....] Now, more than ever, it’s clear that the only way to “assure[] preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted” is for the Supreme Court to revisit and overturn the third party doctrine.

The judges in the minority wrote an unreserved dissenting opinion, stating, "Only time will tell whether our society will prove capable of preserving age-old privacy protections in this increasingly networked era. But one thing is sure: this Court's decision today will do nothing to advance that effort."

Citing the third-party doctrine, Judge Dana Mortz wrote for the majority opinion (pdf) that U.S. Supreme Court precedent "mandates this conclusion."

The ruling overturns a previous decision in 2015 by the lower court's three-judge panel, which found that police do need a warrant to collect cell phone location data. That decision relied on another legal principle known as the mosaic theory, which holds that seeking a large number of data points can eventually amount to an unlawful search and seizure.

Tuesday's ruling comes after similar decisions by the 5th, 6th, and 11th circuit courts. The previous split in the lower courts indicated that the Supreme Court could take up the case, but Reuters reports that Tuesday's opinion makes it less likely.

Nate Wessler, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told The Intercept that he was hopeful the case would not end at Tuesday's ruling.

"In virtually every one of these cases, there have been very strong dissents. That in itself is a very strong message to the Supreme Court," he said.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

... 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.

'We Won't Stop Fighting,' Vow South African Activists After Judge OKs Shell Seismic Blasting at Sea

"We must do everything we can to undo the destructive colonial legacy of extractivism, until we live in a world where people and the planet come before the profits of toxic fossil fuel companies."

Brett Wilkins ·


Biden Continues Drilling Boom on Public Lands Despite Campaign Pledge, Analysis Shows

"The reality is that in the battle between the oil industry and Biden, the industry is winning."

Julia Conley ·


Big Oil Profits Surge to $174 Billion in 2021 Amid Rising Gas Prices: Report

"Americans looking for someone to blame for the pain they experience at the pump need look no further than the wealthy oil and gas company executives who choose to line their own pockets."

Kenny Stancil ·


Rights Groups Decry 'Farcical and Corrupt' Verdict as Myanmar's Suu Kyi Sentenced to Four Years in Prison

"There are many detainees without the profile of Aung San Suu Kyi who currently face the terrifying prospect of years behind bars simply for peacefully exercising their human rights."

Jake Johnson ·


Campaigners Warn of 'Wave After Wave of Variants' as Long as Vaccine Apartheid Remains

"Omicron is with us because we have failed to vaccinate the world. This should be a wake-up call."

Jake Johnson ·

Support our work.

We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100% reader supported.

Subscribe to our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values.
Direct to your inbox.

Subscribe to our Newsletter.


Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit | Privacy Policy
Common Dreams Logo