NY4 declines to extend state const. and warrant requirement to CSLI

The state used CSLI and cell records on less than probable cause to connect defendant to a robbery victim. These are business records, and the court declines to extend a higher state constitutional standard to CSLI but recognizing that other states have. People v. Jiles, 2017 NY Slip Op 08944, 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9004 (4th Dept. Dec. 22, 2017):

We recognize that certain other states have afforded cell site location information greater protection under their state constitutions than it is afforded under the federal constitution (see e.g. Commonwealth v Augustine, 467 Mass 230, 251-255, 4 N.E.3d 846, 863-866 [2014]; Earls, 214 NJ at 588-589, 70 A3d at 644), and that the Court of Appeals has at times interpreted article I, § 12 of the New York Constitution more broadly than the identical language of the Fourth Amendment (see e.g. People v Weaver, 12 NY3d 433, 445-447, 909 N.E.2d 1195, 882 N.Y.S.2d 357 [2009]; People v Torres, 74 NY2d 224, 228-231, 543 N.E.2d 61, 544 N.Y.S.2d 796 [1989]). We nonetheless conclude, consistent with the determination of the Court of Appeals with respect to roughly analogous telephone billing records, that there is “no sufficient reason” to afford the cell site location information at issue here greater protection under the state constitution than it is afforded under the federal constitution (Di Raffaele, 55 NY2d at 242; see People v Guerra, 65 NY2d 60, 63-64, 478 N.E.2d 1319, 489 N.Y.S.2d 718 [1985]; People v Hall, 86 AD3d 450, 451-452, 926 N.Y.S.2d 514 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 961, 973 N.E.2d 211, 950 N.Y.S.2d 113 [2012], cert denied 568 U.S. 1163, 133 S. Ct. 1240, 185 L. Ed. 2d 189 [2013]). To the extent that “cell phone users may reasonably want their location information to remain private” under these circumstances, their recourse is “in the market or the political process” (Application of United States for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F3d at 615).