HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.
HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.

Massachusetts' Top Court Says Warrants Are Needed For Real-Time Cell Site Location Info

from the this-means-you,-Stingrays dept

Five years ago, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court got out ahead of the tech curve by declaring that state law enforcement would need warrants to seek historical cell site location info. This predated the US Supreme Court's Carpenter decision by four years. The state court's prescient decision was compelled by the state's Constitution, which provides greater protections than the United States' Constitution.

But no matter which Constitution was used, the court found that the Third Party Doctrine shouldn't cover CSLI because, while everyone uses cellphones to communicate with each other, not a single cellphone user carries one around just to create tracking data for the government.

A recent decision by the same court expands protections for cellphone users -- going further than Carpenter's protection of historical cell site location info. As the ACLU's Kade Crockford points out, real-time acquisition of location info now comes with a warrant requirement. This covers more than service provider-assisted "pings." It also covers one of law enforcement's favorite toys.

Crucially, the ruling takes a different approach from the Supreme Court’s Carpenter decision in one key respect: Instead of confining its mandate to the narrow circumstances of the case before the Court, the ruling extends the warrant protection to other types of real-time cellphone tracking, including where the government uses its own technology rather than requesting the assistance of cellphone companies. In a huge victory for Massachusetts residents, the ruling explicitly specifies that it additionally applies to law enforcement’s use of so-called “stingrays,” also known as cell-site simulators, or devices that police can use to directly track cellphones—enabling police to cut out the cellphone company from the equation entirely.

As the court points out in its decision [PDF], manipulating a person's phone to reveal its location has nothing to do with third-party records or phone users' implied relinquishment of this tracking data. The only party involved is the government. The service provider may be involved, but the phone's owner certainly isn't.

The intrusive nature of police action that causes an individual's cell phone to transmit its real-time location raises distinct privacy concerns. When the police ping a cell phone, as they did in this case, they compel it to emit a signal, and create a transmission identifying its real-time location information. [...] This action and transmission is initiated and effectively controlled by the police, and is done without any express or implied authorization or other involvement by the individual cell phone user. See id. (noting that cell phone ping is "undetectable to the [cell phone] user"). Without police direction, such data would also not otherwise be collected and retained by the service provider.

This active inducement of a signal, solely for the purpose of locating a phone, is something invasive enough it requires a warrant. Since that's all Stingrays do -- induce all phones in the area to cough up identification/location info -- there's no way Stingrays aren't covered by this ruling. The court is clear law enforcement means and methods that subvert societal expectations are unreasonable. Hence the need for warrants.

We confidently conclude that such police action implicates reasonable expectations of privacy. Indeed, society reasonably expects that the police will not be able to secretly manipulate our personal cell phones for any purpose, let alone for the purpose of transmitting our personal location data.

The footnote attached to this paragraph specifically references Stingray devices. And it makes it clear this ruling covers whatever new tech/method law enforcement uses to obtain real-time location info, preemptively instituting a warrant requirement for future tech developments.

We recognize that the government's ability to compel a cell phone to reveal its location is not limited to the pinging that occurred in this case. For instance, law enforcement in other jurisdictions have used "cell site simulators" to track down persons of interest by "trick[ing] all nearby phones" into revealing their location information (quotations omitted). State v. Andrews, 227 Md. App. 350, 379 (2016). Nor do we doubt that as technology continues to advance, the government will develop new ways to compel an individual's cell phone to reveal its location. The privacy concerns raised by pinging a cell phone apply equally to any circumstance where the cell phone's location information is generated as a direct result of the government's manipulation of an individual's cell phone.

It's a solid ruling. And it shows some states are going to set the pace in tech/privacy cases simply because their state Constitutions provide residents with more protections than are found at the federal level. If we can't get a unified stance from the top court in the land, maybe we can piece it together state-by-state.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, cell site location info, csli, massachusetts, privacy, warrants


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    David, 26 Apr 2019 @ 3:27am

    Well, it's sort of a no-brainer

    It's just that the federal Supreme Court has to catch up with the millennium we are living in. I doubt that the people actually having written the Constitution would take as long as that but their role in maintaining the meaning of the Constitution is confined to rotating in their graves these days.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2019 @ 5:04am

      Re: Well, it's sort of a no-brainer

      The people who wrote the Constitution would declare the entire Government null and void and require us to start over with a non-corrupt version. The NSA alone would make them start shooting those in charge for ever allowing it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        stderric (profile), 26 Apr 2019 @ 6:41am

        Re: Re: Well, it's sort of a no-brainer

        And the Government would have them rounded up as terrorists, tossed in Guantanamo, and tortured for giving us freedom instead of happiness. (And now it's time for me to go write a gritty reboot of the 'Grand Inquisitor' from Karamazov... or better yet, not write it and just sue anyone who does.)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2019 @ 7:23am

          Re: Re: Re: Well, it's sort of a no-brainer

          It is not a trade off between freedom and happiness.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            stderric (profile), 26 Apr 2019 @ 2:27pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, it's sort of a no-brainer

            [Note to self: new Dostoevsky material needs work; for now, go back to dumb Kurt Gödel references and stealing from John Oliver.]

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        26 Apr 2019, 26 Apr 2019 @ 7:37am

        Re: a no-brainer

        >> people who wrote the Constitution would conclude that their American 'federal republic model' had devolved into an authoritaritian central national government within two generations.
        The ancient Roman Federal Republic took several centuries to dissolve into wildly oppressive dictatorship.

        They would seek a much different confederation model that did not reply upon a mere written constitution to restrict normal government excesses and rapid expansion.

        Relying on the US Supreme Court to protect citizen rights is a fundamental rookie error.
        Constitution's authors figured the sovereign American state governments would be the primary enforcers of their Constitution; Lincoln's Union Army proved the whole American Republic experiment to be a painful farce.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2019 @ 9:51am

          Re: Re: a no-brainer

          They would seek a much different confederation model that did not reply upon a mere written constitution to restrict normal government excesses and rapid expansion.

          The didn't intend for the Constitution to restrict things. That's a perversion, and it's why some of them were against the bill of rights. The Constitution grants powers to government; anything not so granted is a power they're not supposed to have.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Bamboo Harvester (profile), 26 Apr 2019 @ 10:00am

            Re: Re: Re: a no-brainer

            Pretty much.

            People use the caps on Constitution without thinking about what the word means - it's a list of items describing what constitutes what it is describing.

            The Constitution is simply a list of what the government it was forming MUST do.

            The Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments to the Must Do list are items the newly formed government must NOT do.

            The problem comes in when you start "interpreting" the clearly-worded document to mean what you want it to mean.

            The difference between a Conservative Justice and a Liberal Justice has nothing to do with right/left politics.

            A Conservative starts with The Constitution, then works through case law to make a determination.

            A Liberal starts with the resolution they want and works backwards to try and warp the Constitution to allow it.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2019 @ 4:36pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: a no-brainer

              The Constitution is simply a list of what the government it was forming MUST do.

              Sometimes "MUST", sometimes "MAY". Section 8, enumerated powers, is all MAY; they are not, for instance, required to declare war or grant copyrights/patents/etc.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 29 Apr 2019 @ 2:30am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: a no-brainer

              It's not as cut-and-dried as that, as recent events are proving. Any authoritarian will find a way to "make" the Constitution say what it wants. If you were right we wouldn't have a surveillance state and constant attacks on women's rights to self-determination whether they are pregnant or not.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Thad (profile), 26 Apr 2019 @ 10:21am

        Re: Re: Well, it's sort of a no-brainer

        The people who wrote the Constitution would declare the entire Government null and void and require us to start over with a non-corrupt version.

        ...if that was the sort of thing the people who wrote the Constitution were likely to do, they probably would have added a mechanism for doing that to the Constitution.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          David, 27 Apr 2019 @ 12:56am

          Re: Re: Re: Well, it's sort of a no-brainer

          They did not try exercising constitutional means of English Law in order to separate themselves from England. Clearly they were of the "if it is broken beyond repair, start over" persuasion.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2019 @ 7:00am

    Even this decision won't mean much when the first officer to violate it claims qualified immunity.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 26 Apr 2019 @ 1:33pm

      'Stingray' Never heard of it.

      And/or engages in some good old fashion evidence laundering.

      Still, better to have it on the books and at least have the chance(if ever so insanely small) for punishments, than not have it there and have no chance whatsoever.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    stderric (profile), 26 Apr 2019 @ 8:03am

    Massachusetts isn't in the 8th Circuit, so at least they can still put chalk marks on people's cell phones

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 26 Apr 2019 @ 6:17pm

    Does any company make a phone case that will completely shield a phone so it's only detectable when you use it? I realize this would also stop it from receiving incoming calls or texts, but I'm curious if such a thing exists for people who might want to carry a cell phone, but not have it act as a full-time tracking device.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2019 @ 10:01pm

    Damn, Zof's not going to like this, is he?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    saiteja, 26 Apr 2019 @ 10:11pm

    anuhar homes

    Anuhar Homes has been creating dynamic residential communities for over a decade
    http://www.anuhar.com/home.html

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.