Is Cell Tracking Data Protected by the Fourth Amendment? Part 2
In last week's column, I discussed United States v. Stimler, No. 15-4053 (Third Cir. July 7), in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that defendant Jay Goldstein's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when the magistrate issued an order under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2703(d) (SCA), compelling AT&T to provide to the government historic cell site location information (CSLI) generated by Goldstein's phone.
August 03, 2017 at 04:36 PM
17 minute read
Editor's note: This is the second in a two-part series.
In last week's column, I discussed United States v. Stimler, No. 15-4053 (Third Cir. July 7), in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that defendant Jay Goldstein's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when the magistrate issued an order under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2703(d) (SCA), compelling AT&T to provide to the government historic cell site location information (CSLI) generated by Goldstein's phone.
In this week's article, I provide an analysis of the decision.
|Analysis
In his concurrence, Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo correctly observed that Jones and Riley had undercut the decisional basis of In re Application so as to cause the Third Circuit to revisit the issue. It is not clear, however, that reconsideration of the issue would lead to a different result. The reason for that, as I will discuss, is that while Judge Restrepo's observations regarding how easily CSLI can track a person's movements in a granular manner previously not available to law enforcement (or anyone else) are accurate, it is ambiguous as to whether such tracking invades the privacy of the person.
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 All
Seven Rules of the Road for Managing Referrals To/From Other Attorneys, Part 1
7 minute read
Matt's Corner: RPC 8.4(d)—Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice
2 minute read
The Moving Goalposts of Overtime Exemption: Texas Judge Invalidates 2024 Salary Threshold Rule
5 minute read
Trending Stories
- 1Weil Advances 18 to Partner, Largest Class Since 2021
- 2People and Purpose: AbbVie's GC on Leading With Impact and Inspiring Change
- 3Beef Between Two South Florida Law Firms Deepens With Suit Over Defamation
- 4Judge Skips Over Sanctions in Talc Bankruptcy: 'That’s A No'
- 5Hit by Mail Truck: Man Agrees to $1.85M Settlement for Spinal Injuries
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
