{"id":22403,"date":"2016-05-31T16:48:23","date_gmt":"2016-05-31T21:48:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=22403"},"modified":"2016-05-31T16:48:23","modified_gmt":"2016-05-31T21:48:23","slug":"ca4-en-banc-csli-is-mere-third-party-information-not-requiring-sw","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=22403","title":{"rendered":"CA4 en banc: CSLI is mere third-party information not requiring SW"},"content":{"rendered":"

CSLI is third-party information the government does not need a warrant to obtain. 221 days worth of information was admissible. It\u2019s up to Congress or SCOTUS to change the third-party doctrine. United States v. Graham<\/a>, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9797 (4th Cir. May 31, 2016) (en banc):
\n<\/p>\n

In United States v. Graham, 796 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2015), a panel of this court affirmed the convictions of Defendants Aaron Graham and Eric Jordan arising from their participation in a series of armed robberies. The panel opinion sets out the facts of this case in great detail. Id. at 339-43. The only facts now relevant concern the portion of the Government\u2019s investigation during which it obtained historical cell-site location information (CSLI) from Defendants\u2019 cell phone provider. This historical CSLI indicated which cell tower \u2013 usually the one closest to the cell phone \u2013 transmitted a signal when the Defendants used their cell phones to make and receive calls and texts. The Government used the historical CSLI at Defendants\u2019 trial to place them in the vicinity of the armed robberies when the robberies had occurred.<\/p>\n

A majority of the panel held that, although the Government acted in good faith in doing so, it had violated Defendants\u2019 Fourth Amendment rights when it obtained the CSLI without a warrant. The majority directed that henceforth the Government must secure a warrant supported by probable cause before obtaining these records from cell phone providers. The Government moved for rehearing en banc, which we granted, vacating the panel opinion. See United States v. Graham, 624 F. App\u2019x 75 (4th Cir. 2015); 4th Cir. R. 35(c). We now hold that the Government\u2019s acquisition of historical CSLI from Defendants\u2019 cell phone provider did not violate the Fourth Amendment.<\/p>\n

Supreme Court precedent mandates this conclusion. For the Court has long held that an individual enjoys no Fourth Amendment protection \u201cin information he voluntarily turns over to [a] third part[y].\u201d Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979). This rule — the third-party doctrine — applies even when \u201cthe information is revealed\u201d to a third party, as it assertedly was here, \u201con the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed.\u201d United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 443 (1976). All of our sister circuits to have considered the question have held, as we do today, that the government does not violate the Fourth Amendment when it obtains historical CSLI from a service provider without a warrant. In addition to disregarding precedent, Defendants\u2019 contrary arguments misunderstand the nature of CSLI, improperly attempt to redefine the third-party doctrine, and blur the critical distinction between content and non-content information. <\/p>\n

The Supreme Court may in the future limit, or even eliminate, the third-party doctrine. Congress may act to require a warrant for CSLI. But without a change in controlling law, we cannot conclude that the Government violated the Fourth Amendment in this case.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

CSLI is third-party information the government does not need a warrant to obtain. 221 days worth of information was admissible. It\u2019s up to Congress or SCOTUS to change the third-party doctrine. United States v. Graham, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9797 … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[84,79],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22403","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cell-site-location-information","category-third-party-doctrine"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22403","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=22403"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22403\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22404,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22403\/revisions\/22404"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=22403"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=22403"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=22403"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}