The government used a warrantless StingRay to track down a phone number. They got the number from a third party (A store worker who claimed someone with the same name of the criminal gave their number). When the government received this number, they used a StingRay to find it.
Thank you,
Dr. Sartre
The Third-Party Doctrine states "that if you voluntarily provide information to a third party, the Fourth Amendment does not preclude government departments from accessing it without a warrant".
The way technology has changed the ability to access all types of information such as e-mail addresses, personal contact details the Third-Party Doctrine could be seen to be out-dated, however there is legislative debate as to how this will go forward. I would say that the Third-Party Doctrine was properly used in the above scenario, mainly due to the point raised by many people that 'if you place information in the public domain or third-party then you do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy.
I suggest you read the document 'The Fourth Ammendment Third-Party Doctrine by Richard M. Thompson II, Legistative Attorney, June 5th 2014.
I do hope this is of help, the document is about the debate and going forward.
Sue
The store worker gave the number to police and a name that matched the name of the criminal. Thus, probable cause existed to track and locate the suspected criminal and police could have obtained a warrant. Instead, they proceeded without a warrant and used an electronic tracking device (Stingray) to locate the device/suspects location. The issue is whether under the fourth amendment, a warrant is required to use electronic tracking devices to determine a person's location. In some U.S. states, the answer is yes, i.e. Montana, in others U.S. states the answer is no, i.e. Georgia. States are taking the lead on the issue of privacy and electronic monitoring and tracking by police. The NY Courts have held that GPS tracking requires a warrant for example. Thus, you have weighed in on an area of unsettled law regarding privacy, how intrusive in the device, and the fourth amendment.
Yes, that is true. I am exploring legal arguments for both sides under the different precedents. Under Jones, in 2012, 5 justices concurred stating that they believe long-term surveillance without trespass violates an individual's expectation of privacy under the Katz test. Essentially, the main question I wonder is whether tracking criminals with a warrantless StingRay passes the Katz test. An important argument to consider is the third party doctrine.
The Stingray "intercepts" (18 USC 2510(4) "electronic communications" (18 USC 2510(12). Katz added, the reasonable expectation of privacy test to the common-law trespassory test. This reasonable expectation of privacy protects people even when they operate in public spaces. Thus, we have to ask, 1) was there an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy that location information was private, and 2) that the expectation that it was private one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.
You can argue both sides, but keep in mind that third party doctrine is about accessing information that has been turned over to third parties, i.e. phone records. The Stingray does more; it intercepts "electronic communications" and gleans information (location) that reasonable people might expect to keep private. Where you are is a private matter (not a government interest) despite the fact that you may be in the public sphere. Thus, I do not believe that third party doctrine is appropriate and a warrant is needed to use a Stingray. A note on my previous comment, it is unsettled in many states, so police still use it and some deny even having Stingray devices, i.e. some states in the northeast.
That is a great point on the third party doctrine. Just to add on, I heard of interesting arguments saying that they would go a step further, stating that even if police officers did get a warrant, using a StingRay would still be unconstitutional. This is because if we look at the history of the fourth amendment, it was made to prevent general warrant searches that police conducted. StingRays are similar, for they are not particular as the fourth amendment states it should be. They go to every phone in the area with the same service provider, like a general warrant search that goes to each house in the neighborhood and looks for a certain phone. Because such of this widespread invasive behavior and lack of particularity, it can be deemed unconstitutional.
Additionally, when the tracking happens through public roads, it is subject to argument whether there is a violation on the fourth amendment. However, when it enters the residence of the person's home, that is when there is a clear violation in my opinion. This is where the difference between Karo and Knotts take place. In Karo the court pointed out that if an agent entered a house without a warrant to check if the thing they were looking for was inside the house that would be an invasion of privacy, which is quite similar to what is happening here.
- Badges
- Science method