Legal News

?Location Privacy? Gets a Boost in Pennsylvania Ruling

By Dan Slater

So-called “location privacy” got a boost yesterday when a district judge in Pennsylvania ruled that the government must have probable cause before asking wireless providers to turn over records that show where customers used their cellphones. Here’s the story from the WaPo, which notes that the opinion is the first by a federal district court on the issue.

Judge Terrence F. McVerry of the Western District of Pennsylvania rejected the government’s argument that historical cellphone tower location data did not require probable cause. His ruling gives guidance to magistrate judges, who often handle search warrant requests.

“This is a great ruling for location privacy and for people who think the government should have probable cause before they track you,” Jennifer Granick, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told the WaPo.

But Orin Kerr, a con law prof at GW, said the decision was “very likely wrong” and faces “an uphill battle on appeal.”

The case involved a government investigation of a drug trafficker, the judge affirmed a February ruling by U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan that whether the data sought was historical or real-time, it required a warrant. At issue was a government request for an order directing Sprint Spectrum to disclose historical cellphone data that included cell tower location information as well as call times and durations.

U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, who filed the brief asking the district court to review Lenihan’s ruling, wrote: “For instance, records of past credit card transactions will often serve to place a person at a given location at a specific time, yet under established Fourth Amendment law they enjoy no Fourth Amendment protection.” She argued that historical cell-site records reveal location only to within a few hundred yards, not feet, and are “much too imprecise” to tell whether calls have been made from a “constitutionally protected space, let alone to reveal facts about the interiors of private homes or other protected areas.”

Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on September 12, 2008 (boomark / email).