Investor’s Business Daily: Betsy McCaughey: How Privacy Purists Are Helping Criminals [No they're not and she doesn't get how it all works.]

Investor’s Business Daily: Betsy McCaughey: How Privacy Purists Are Helping Criminals:

Next time you set out to commit armed robbery, leave your cellphone at home. Timothy Carpenter was convicted of robbing a string of T-Mobile and Radio Shack stores, stealing smartphones. But he wasn’t too smart himself. He used his cellphone to call fifteen getaway drivers. The calls were his undoing. The FBI used the records from his wireless carrier to confirm his proximity to every robbed store when it was hit.

Now Carpenter and the American Civil Liberties Union are challenging the conviction, and the Supreme Court just agreed to hear the case.

Activists determined to guarantee total privacy to criminal suspects, no matter what the cost to society, are thrilled. They’re predicting Carpenter v. United States could be a landmark victory for privacy.

How foolish. A victory for Carpenter would tip the scales of justice in favor of criminals and against law enforcement’s ability to keep us safe.

No, and the author just does not get it. All Carpenter means if he wins is that a search warrant is required for the CSLI. It grants no immunity from prosecution for using a cell phone. Riley didn’t cell phone; Jardines didn’t drugs in the house; Jones didn’t GPS information. Like Riley, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2495 (2014):

Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple — get a warrant.

This entry was posted in Cell site location information, Third Party Doctrine. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.