Site Loader

1. Focus Question: If the police can legally obtain the telephone numbers that someone calls because the numbers are numbers are not private, should they be able to also obtain the locations of the calls? Is the location of the calls private information that has been shared with a third party (the cell phone company), and therefore not private.A. Answer: The information has been shared with a third party. The police do not need a warrant to obtain in the information, as stated in Graham vs United States (described in opening statement), which states that , the acquisition of historical CSLI data does NOT constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment.(Case Citation: 846 F. Supp. 2d at 389.)(Suffolk University Law Review, suffolklawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Derman_Comment_PDF_Web.pdf)   B.How it can support your position: This claim supports our position because in our case the police didn’t need to obtain a search warrant because it is not personal information. The fourth amendment is not supported for public information such as your location. Location isn’t private because even if you can go back in time to find a person’s previous travel, you still don’t know what they are exactly doing there. Location is just where you are, not what you are personally doing, therefore it doesn’t violate the fourth amendment. CSLI can track your location from 5-10 ft.c. Evidence for Support: In the Fourth Amendment it states that people should have privacy in their homes and businesses. It does not state anything about location provided by a third party. Carpenter appealed his conviction on October 14, 2015 by the United States Court of appeals for the sixth circuit.The judges argued that third party providers didn’t constitute a search,therefore not violating his fourth amendment.  In Smith v Maryland it states that the Supreme Court said that the “Telephone users know that the telephone company keeps track of the numbers people call; this is how the phone company charges for calls. The numbers are printed on a phone bill that is prepared by the phone company.” So this shows that society understands that the numbers that people dial are not secret only to the customer, but public information, similar to CLSI. The information is public because it shared with a third party. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/16-402)d. Group member speaking: Kailie Savarese2. Focus Question: Does it matter that the cell phone company provided records revealing Carpenter’s location over the course of four months? Is this case more like Jones than like Smith? In other words, is the CSLI more like a GPS than a pen register? If so, why does that make a difference under the principles of the Fourth Amendment?a. Answer: No, it doesn’t matter that the cell phone company provided records of Carpenters location because it is similar to a pen register and the information is not private information. All CSLI is shared with a third party server. Police have access to all this information if they need to search it according to the case of Smith vs. Maryland. This information includes the following; location, all numbers dialed and all numbers called. If they desire to install a pen register on a certain cell phone, they need a court order and provide good reasoning behind why they want to install that pen register.  A pen register is a device that keeps track of the numbers dialed and called on your phone.This connects to our case because similar to a pen register you need a court order to get the CSLI, which the police obtained making it compliant to the fourth amendment.  This case is more like Jones because a CSLI is more like a GPS then a pen register. His personal property is not being searched but his location was searched which was his public information.    b. How it can support your position: This supports our case because they are saying that this is more like a GPS when it is really just public information that you are paying for so the company has the right make that information public.  c. Evidence for Support:In Smith, they asked the cell company to put a pen register on his phone, which was ruled not to need a warrant. With this case, they aren’t actually searching any of their property, so it does not need a warrant.d. Group members speaking: Alex Fenkell 3. Focus Question: Location information can be sensitive. For example, one court has said that “a person who knows all of another’s travels can deduce whether he is a weekly church goer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym , an unfaithful husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment , an associate of particular individuals or political groups-and not just one such fact about a person, but all such facts.” bearing this in mind, is location information fundamentally different than the numbers that someone calls? is it more like the information the Supreme Courtfound was protected in Riley? Even if the information has been shared with a third party (the cell phone company) should it be treated differently under the Fourth Amendment.   a. Answer: No, you can find all this information out online and just by talking, not searching. Yes, location information is different than the numbers you dial on your phone. Although, it isn’t similar to searching through a phone to find information, it is only looking at location not inside. If you were to search the contents of somebody’s phone without a search warrant that would violate the Fourth Amendment because it protects your property from being searched without a warrant. Because the CSLI is shared with a third party, they do not need a warrant. The CSLI is public information and allows everyone to have access to it, it’s never in the state of private information. If the information was given out illegally the company would most likely be sued and the company wouldn’t like that so it makes sense for the company to only give out information legally. b. How it can support your position: This is proving that location information is different than your personal life. Also that cell phone location is different than the contents in your cell phone. c. Evidence for Support: The Fourth Amendment protects search and seizure of personal items and belongings. The location of your cell phone is public and is not sharing any information that is private such as documents, private papers, and such. The location of where you are does not reveal much besides your location.  d. Group member speaking: Anna Forberg 4. Focus Question: Is all information shared with a third party necessarily open to the public? For example, we tell our doctors things that the doctors are not allowed to tell anyone else. Our hospital records are personal and private; the police cannot obtain those except with a warrant, because the courts believe that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their medical matters. Is location information different? If so, how?a. Answer:Location information is different, as the cell phone companies are allowed to collect and distribute that information, as there is no law that prevents them from doing so. With a Doctor, they have specific laws such as The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Public Law 104-191, enacted on August 21, 1996. Sections 261 through 264 of HIPAA require the Secretary of HHS to publicize standards for the electronic exchange, privacy and security of health information. (Secretary, HHS Office of the, and Office for Civil Rights (OCR). “Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule.” HHS.gov, US Department of Health and Human Services, 26 July 2013, www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/laws-regulations/index.html.)  In regards to the “reasonable expectation of privacy” bit, your medical records reveal much, much more information about you than your location for a few months. Also, there are many state laws and medical ethics rules that prevent that kind of breach of privacy. With location, there is no law that stops them from sharing that information, and you also agree to their privacy policy when you sign up for a mobile plan.b. How it can support your position: It shows that there are multiple protections for things that reveal too much personal information, and also shows that CSLI is something that the cell phone companies are allowed to share. Although, CSLI does not share an personal information and cannot give any information from your personal life other than location. c. Evidence for Support:In Smith, a robbery victim was receiving harassing phone calls. The police suspected Smith, and they asked the phone company to install a pen register on his home phone line. Whenever a call was placed from Smith’s home phone, the phone company would record the numbers dialed and keep a record for the police. The record showed that the calls did indeed originate from Smith’s home, and the police used that evidence to get a warrant to search the home and prove Smith’s guilt. The question in the case was whether the numbers dialed were protected by the Fourth Amendment. Smith would have been forced to harass the victim in person: He would have left his house, walked to his car, and driven to her home. If the police suspected that Smith was the harasser, they could have watched him the entire way. The Fourth amendment would make no difference.d. Group member speaking: Kate Mofrad5. Focus Question: If a court allows the phone company to share location information, should an internet provider be allowed to share the content of emails with the police? If not, what is the difference, in that both involve forms of electronic communication.a. Answer:No, the content of those companies are mostly bills and not anything that can be searched. The difference is that what is going on in your home and life which isn’t public whereas your location is.  The Third Party doctrine should and does not apply if the delivered communication takes the form of a sealed letter in the postal mail, the contents of a phone call, or the contents of an email, because the Third Party in that case is simply a “conduit” for information.b. How it can support your position:The reason is that when the third party is merely a conduit for information, the information that is sent through the third party is not information that would have been revealed if no third parties had been used.c. Evidence for Support:A 2012 Maryland District Court court case (United States v. Graham) held that historical cell site location data is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.d. Group member speaking: Kate MofradPrecedent Cases1. Case name: Smith v Maryland,442 US 735(1979)a. Description of case: Smith robbed a women in baltimore, and they used a pen register to track his locations down because the women  who was robbed could only give a description of the man, they also searched his house bur acquired a warrant before doing that.b. How it supports your position:in this supreme court case, the united states court decided that the installation of a pen register was not considered as a search, therefore the police did not need a warrant. This supports our case because we are also trying to prove that the pen register used in our case, did not need a warrant.2. Case name: Kyllo v United States(2001)a. Description of case: In the case Kyllo v United states, Kyllo was growing marijuana inside of his house. In order for you to grow marijuana you must have a lot of heat. The cops got a search warrant to use a thermal imager and they did and Kyllo was found guilty. b. How it supports your position:3. Case name:United States v Jones, 565 US 400(2012)a. Description of case: In the case United States vs. Jones the government placed a tracking device on Jones car and tracked where he went for the next 30 days and found that jones was guilty of possessing drugs. Jones argues that this was a violation of his fourth amendment. Because the police did not have a search warrant. b. How it supports your position: It doesn’t support our position.4. Case name: Riley v California, 134 S Ct 2473 (2014)a. Description of case: Riley open fired on his rival gang. Later Riley was found driving a different car with an expired tab, during the search they found two guns and subsequently  arrested him.b. How it supports your position:5. Case name: United States v. Graham, 846 F. Supp. 2d 384 (D. Md. 2012) a. Description of case:  The Court held that historical cell site location data is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.b. How it supports your position:It shows that in that case CSLI was not protected by the Fourth Amendment.6. Case name: United States vs. Davis a. Description of case: Davis was charged with seven armed robberies within 2 months. The state obtained a court order to get Davis’s cell phone records for the past 2 months. “The appellate court affirmed Davis’s conviction, holding that an order compelling business records from a cell service carrier is not a “search” of the cell phone user. The appellate court found that Davis did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy over those records, partly because they were business records in the custody of a third party.”  https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/litigationnews/top_stories/082415-cell-phone-discovery.htmlb. How it supports your position: The court filed him guilty after using his cell phone location without a search but with a court order. Just like in our case.

Post Author: admin

x

Hi!
I'm Matt!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out