'Tower Dump' Warrants Ruled Unconstitutional (thehill.com)
- Reference: 0184884664
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/08/06/2147247/tower-dump-warrants-ruled-unconstitutional
- Source link: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/6013559-mississippi-judge-declares-towers-dumps-unconstitutional/
> A federal judge in Mississippi ruled Wednesday that " [2]tower dump" warrants are unconstitutional , declining to reverse a lower court decision refusing the government's request to obtain the search warrants in a series of violent crime investigations. A "tower dump" involves cellphone companies providing law enforcement with access to the time and location data of all mobile devices connected to specific cell towers during a designated time window.
>
> Law enforcement had sought approval for several of these search warrants as part of criminal investigations into gang-related activity in the Jackson, Miss., area last year, arguing the data could help identify all those potentially involved, particularly in incidents with unknown suspects. A magistrate judge denied the applications, holding that "tower dumps" are impermissible general warrants. The district judge agreed.
The order repeatedly referenced the [3]Supreme Court's recent decision in Chatrie v United States, in which the majority held that geofence warrants require constitutional privacy protections.
"With this information, the Government asserts that it will be able to identify all potential suspects," Judge Carlton Reeves wrote in a [4]30-page order (PDF). "Even so, law enforcement would also have access to the cellular records of countless individuals, the vast majority of whom were merely passing by a location at the 'wrong' time."
"That is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment," the judge concluded.
[1] https://slashdot.org/~alternative_right
[2] https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/6013559-mississippi-judge-declares-towers-dumps-unconstitutional/
[3] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/06/30/064251/us-supreme-court-rules-geofence-warrants-require-constitutional-privacy-protections
[4] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mssd.127963/gov.uscourts.mssd.127963.41.0.pdf
So Flock too? (Score:5, Interesting)
"“Even so, law enforcement would also have access to the cellular records of countless individuals, the vast majority of whom were merely passing by a location at the ‘wrong’ time.”
“That is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment,” the judge concluded."
So would not the same logic apply to Flock cameras?
No. (Score:4, Informative)
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. Cell phones are different because they're considered private communications despite using public airwaves.
There have been attempts to get precedent that automated, continuous monitoring is qualitatively different than a cop standing outside watching you, with unfortunately mixed results.
Re: (Score:2)
Flock is much worse. They don't even have a warrant in most cases.
Re:So Flock too? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, unfortunately not.
In the Supreme Court ruling, the Court specifically addressed the issue that the purpose for which the information was shared was relevant to the establishment of a privacy interest.
Cell phone information is shared with the cell tower operators as a necessary function of the cellular system: your phone wont work if the towers do not know how to route the data to you. You maintain a 4th amendment privacy interest in the information, even though it is shared with third parties.
Your license plate number is shared for the purpose of identifying your vehicle to police/government authorities. You do not have a 4th amendment privacy interest in keeping it from the police/government authorities.
We will have to find other ways of getting Flock out of our lives. It will probably take passing new laws to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't deny this is where we are at, legally, but it is quite the circular argument at its core.
It's ok to track your license plate, because you are required to display a license plate for tracking.
Re: (Score:2)
> It's ok to track your license plate, because you are required to display a license plate for tracking.
The legal justification is that the public roadways were financed by public money (taxes) and maintained by governments (local, state, or federal). So, in effect, some government owns the roadway and can set rules for who can use it, which includes requiring identification tags. (And fees for those tags.)
If you operate a vehicle only on private property, it doesn't need a license plate, and you don't need a license to drive it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't even like that read. I'd argue that the license plate number is shared for purpose of identifying your vehicle in case of an accident/crime committed using the vehicle . When license plates were first adopted into law and practice, there was absolutely no way to comprehensively track random location of random pepole, so you can't argue that tracking everyone everywhere all the time; a relatively new feature that only became plausible in the last twenty years or so, was the intent in the first place.
Nice. (Score:3)
I like to see when judges grow a pair. Makes a welcome change.
All good (Score:2)
We'll just triangulate every person in the vicinity via the bluetooth, tps sensors, license plates, and facial recog tools onboard the 18 flock cameras we quietly installed on this block while nobody was looking and pretend that data is error proof and totally constitutional because we're partnering with a "private company" to obtain the info.
The bill will be paid. (Score:2)
And that there folks is what separates us from the likes of China and Russia. In those countries the laws exist to be enforced against the citizenry. In a constitutional democratic republic the law is enforced against the various arms of the government as well.
Justice may not be blind or a certain someone would be rotting in prison instead of occupying the White House, but checks do exist. They have been rebuked how many times now? And like the Mississippi police even he can only take it so far. Call me
What a Crock (Score:1)
"privacy" how is traveling through Privacy? You are Outside. if I stuck a camera out my window and take a snap, would anyone outside claim violation of "privacy"? Could cell phone data solve a LOT of crime? yes. at what cost? at the assumption of being a suspect, Then being unconsidered a suspect like they usually do. like a group of people being taken a picture of, but only one in the picture is the criminal, but others are not, till they go around asking questions. it's tying the hands of LEO"S with petty
Re:Tower dump in Mississippi (Score:5, Informative)
Law enforcement doesn't care about your rights, only about catching criminals. They wanted to be able to say to a cellphone company "tell me everyone whose cellphone was within range of these three towers (ie. everyone in a particular location) to catch some criminals".
The judge said "hell no! This is America, we have the 4th amendment, and the highest court in the land said it still applies in 2026: you can't just ask for everyone in an area, because you're effectively 'searching' tons of innocent people to find a criminal, and that's exactly what the 4th says you can't do."
Re:Tower dump in Mississippi (Score:4, Informative)
Mostly correct. I'd just add the average LEO doesn't care about catching criminals, either, if it takes too much effort.
Going beyond today, this is a long-running theme in US constitutional law. Before the colonial rebellion, King George was a big fan of "writs of assistance". These were effectively licenses for thugs to search or interrogate anyone at any time in pursuit of a crime (or "crime"), and of course anyone subject to such abuse hated it. So that's where the 4th Amendment came from - we do warrants, but you have to name with specificity what/who you want to investigate as well as why and under what authority, and get a judge to agree.
Authoritarians, thugs and control freaks have been trying to reinvent them ever since.
One famous case from before the digital era was Stanford v. Texas (1965). Texas, being extremely Texan, passed the Suppression Act, which made writings, photos, etc. "concerned with" the Texas Communist Party contraband subject to 20 year prison terms. The Supreme Court unanimously held the warrant was an unconstitutional general warrant.
Opposing general warrants is as American as apple pie, opposing kings and displaying amazing senses of entitlement.
Re: (Score:2)
> Law enforcement doesn't care about your rights, only about catching criminals.
If law enforcement was interested in catching criminals they could have a full time job without every leaving the police station. Instead they show that they can't deal with the so-called "few bad apples".
A far-left take on what the role of law enforcement is can be summed up as [1]the Role of Police is Protecting Capitalism [socialistworker.org]
[1] https://socialistworker.org/blog/critical-reading/2014/12/09/main-role-police-protecting-ca