Can the government use your cell phone records to track your physical location without first obtaining a warrant based on probable cause? Often with EFF input as a friend of the court, the vast majority of judges issuing public opinions on the matter are saying “no”, and rejecting government applications for cell site location tracking information made without showing sufficient need for this kind of sensitive information.
This issue came to light in August 2005, when the first judge to publish a decision on the issue—Magistrate Judge Orenstein in the Eastern District of New York—publicly denied a government request that lacked proof of probable cause. In doing so, Judge Orenstein revealed that the Justice Department had routinely been using a baseless legal argument to get secret authorizations from a number of courts, probably for many years. Many more public denials followed from other judges, sharply rebuking the government and characterizing its legal argument as as "contrived," "unsupported," "misleading," "perverse," and even a "Hail Mary" play. But the government continues to rely on the same argument in front of other judges, most often in secret and sometimes successfully.
EFF has been asked to serve as a friend of the court in several of these applications, successfully showing judges how and why the government's arguments are baseless. EFF will continue to serve as a resource to courts and to counsel, to protect your privacy interest in your physical location, to stop the government from turning the cellular phone system into a vast network for warrantless physical surveillance and to ensure that Big Brother stays out of your pocket.
-
January 17, 2017
-
January 16, 2017
-
December 29, 2016
-
October 27, 2016
-
October 6, 2016
-
September 21, 2016
-
August 11, 2016
-
June 15, 2016
-
April 22, 2016
-
April 13, 2016
- 1 of 10
- next ›
-
October 28, 2016
-
January 25, 2016
-
August 31, 2015
-
August 3, 2015
-
February 10, 2015
-
September 27, 2012
-
August 14, 2012
-
March 19, 2012
-
February 8, 2010
-
September 11, 2008
-
August 5, 2008
-
December 6, 2005
-
November 4, 2005
-
October 26, 2005
-
September 26, 2005
-
| Greenville OnlineNovember 11, 2016
-
| The Daily BeastOctober 24, 2016
-
| National Law JournalJune 6, 2016
-
| Courthouse NewsJune 2, 2016
-
| Air TalkJune 1, 2016
-
| The Daily DotMay 31, 2016
-
| Maryland ReporterMay 11, 2016
-
| Maryland ReporterMay 10, 2016
-
| Tech CrunchApril 21, 2016
-
| The San Diego Union-TribuneJanuary 13, 2016
-
| ForbesNovember 10, 2015
-
| PC WorldNovember 10, 2015
-
| U.S. News & World ReportNovember 3, 2015
-
| Washington ExaminerSeptember 14, 2015
-
| SC MagazineSeptember 3, 2015
Pages
-
November 28, 2016
-
November 28, 2016
-
November 28, 2016
-
November 23, 2016
-
October 28, 2016
-
October 28, 2016
-
September 26, 2016
-
September 26, 2016
-
June 8, 2016
-
June 8, 2016
-
April 22, 2016
-
April 22, 2016
-
April 22, 2016
-
April 22, 2016
-
April 22, 2016
-
April 22, 2016
-
April 22, 2016
-
April 22, 2016
-
April 22, 2016
-
April 22, 2016
Pages
-
EFF joined the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Foundation and the ACLU Foundation of Texas in backing a judge who required a search warrant before approving the seizure of two months of cell phone location data by law enforcement. In this case, the government asked a magistrate judge to ap
-
Police shouldn’t be able to get your sensitive location data – information that can reveal your religion, health, hobbies, and politics – on a whim.
-
EFF filed an amicus brief with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, asking it to rule police must get a search warrant in order to access historical cell site information.
-
EFF filed an amicus brief with the ACLU of Massachusetts asking the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to reaffirm its decision in Commonwealth v.
-
EFF fought the government's attempts to track the location of a mobile phone user without sufficient evidence.
The government had argued that it did not need to show probably cause that a crime was being committed. Consistent with EFF's brief, a federal magistrate judge in New York rejected the government's arguments, calling them "unsupported," "misleading," "contrived," and a "Hail Mary." Since there, several judges have made similar rulings.
-
When the U.S.
-
A federal magistrate judge in San Jose, California denied a government request for historical cell site records, ordering the government to seek a search warrant for the information. The government appealed this order to U.S.
-
Police obtained 67 days worth of location information, detailing more than 11,000 specific cell site locations, to pinpoint defendant Quartavious Davis at various robberies without a search warrant.
-
-
The California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (CalECPA), S.B. 178, requires state law enforcement to get a warrant before they can access electronic information about who we are, where we go, who we know, and what we do.
-
The Milwaukee Police Department secretly used a Stingray to locate defendant Patrick through his cell phone without a warrant.
-
State of Maryland v.
-
Defendant Aaron Graham was suspected in a series of armed robberies around Baltimore. Without a warrant, police obtained 221 days of historical cell site location information about Graham from Sprint, which detailed 29,000 location points, an average of 100 data points a day.
-
In January 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that Americans have constitutional protections against GPS surveillance by law enforcement, holding that GPS tracking is a "search" under the Fourth Amendment.

eff.org/nsa-spying
