US Justice Dept. Wins 'WhatsApp' Surveillance Order on Appeal
A Washington federal judge this month granted the U.S. Justice Department permission to surveil a WhatsApp account as part of an ongoing criminal investigation, a decision that overruled a magistrate judge.
March 19, 2018 at 12:22 PM
4 minute read
Updated on March 19 at 3:28 p.m.
A federal judge this month granted the U.S. Justice Department permission to surveil a WhatsApp account as part of an ongoing criminal investigation, a decision that overruled a magistrate judge who had denied the government's request to track communications over the encrypted messaging and internet calling service.
The decision by Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell in Washington allowed the government to install so-called pen register and trap and trace devices to capture the phone numbers dialed by the WhatsApp user, identified only as “one of several subjects of an ongoing criminal investigation, and also the phone numbers or internet addresses of incoming calls.
Those devices, often referred to together as a “PRTT,” do not give the government access to the content of communications.
Howell's decision, dated March 2 but unsealed last week, overruled a February decision from Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson, who earlier denied the Justice Department's application to use those surveillance devices on the WhatsApp user's account. Robinson, in her Feb. 5 decision, said the government needed to provide more information than just the WhatsApp account number.
Robinson specifically requested the cellular number linked to the WhatsApp account and the identity of the user's cellular service provider. Just days earlier, she had denied six other applications on similar grounds, ruling that the government was “seemingly utilizing 'WhatsApp' and 'Service Provider' interchangeably.”
The Justice Department followed up to clarify that WhatsApp account numbers are the same as users' phone numbers and that WhatsApp itself was the relevant service provider. On Feb. 28, with no response from Robinson, the Justice Department filed an objection with Howell, citing ”the need for the order as part of an ongoing investigation.”
Upholding that objection, Howell said the government had provided enough information by including the WhatsApp account number in its surveillance application.
“Importantly, the government is seeking only WhatsApp information—that is, 'information related to communications occurring over WhatsApp servers located in the United States,' rather than information regarding the cellular telephone number and cellular service provider for the user in question,” Howell wrote, quoting from the Justice Department's objection. “As already discussed, a WhatsApp account number is the same as the phone number used to create the WhatsApp account. Thus, by providing the WhatsApp account number, the government has 'provide[d] the cellular telephone number associated with the designated WhatsApp account,' thereby alleviating the magistrate judge's concerns.”
Howell cited WhatsApp's own policy for handling law enforcement requests for records. That policy, she said, notes that all requests must identify the desired records with “particularity” and include the WhatsApp account number.
“That number, which is also the cellular telephone number for the user at issue, properly was provided in the government's application,” Howell wrote.
A WhatsApp spokesperson on Monday declined to comment.
This post was updated with additional information about the judge's order.
Read Howell's ruling, posted below:
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHolland & Knight, Akin, Crowell, Barnes and Day Pitney Add to DC Practices
3 minute read'There Is No Time to Waste': Matt Gaetz Withdraws From AG Nomination
3 minute readRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250