D.Md.: Gov’t motion for cell phone location data from its GPS merely for an attempted arrest denied

The government’s motion for cell phone location data to locate a person it has an arrest warrant for where there has been no showing of any attempt to flee or that the data would reveal a crime is denied. In Re an Application of The United States for an Order Authorizing Disclosure of Location Information of a Specified Wireless Telephone, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85638 (D. Md. August 3, 2011):

The issue before the Court is the government’s authority to prospectively acquire precise location information derived from cellular and Global Positioning System (“GPS”) technology (collectively “location data”) to aid in the apprehension of the subject of an arrest warrant. The government has reported no attempts of the subject to flee and the requested location data does not otherwise constitute evidence of any crime. The government argues its entitlement to prospective location data under these circumstances pursuant to the Fourth Amendment, Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Stored Communications Act, the All Writs Act, and the inherent authority of the court. In so doing, the government asks to use location data in a new way — not to collect evidence of a crime, but solely to locate a charged defendant. To some, this use would appear reasonable, even commendable and efficient. To others, this use of location data by law enforcement would appear chillingly invasive and unnecessary in the apprehension of defendants. In any event, there is no precedent for use of location data solely to apprehend a defendant in the absence of evidence of flight to avoid prosecution. The government did not submit, and the court did not find, any sufficient authority for this use of location technology. In light of legitimate privacy concerns and the absence of any emergency or extraordinary considerations here, the Court concludes that approval of use of location data for this purpose is best considered deliberately in the legislature, or in the appellate courts. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the underlying warrant applications, but sets forth its guidance on the showing necessary for law enforcement access to prospective location data to aid in the execution of an arrest warrant.

[I can’t find a free link to this case yet, not even on EFF.org, and I don’t have the capability to internally store and link it here. If somebody gets a link, please forward it.]

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.