In a ruling defense counsel said exposes individuals to "geotracking" through their use of Wi-Fi, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled that law enforcement did not need a warrant to obtain evidence that a defendant's cellphone had been logged on to a campus' wireless network at the time an assault and robbery took place in a nearby dorm.

In Commonwealth v. Dunkins, a three-judge panel of the court unanimously upheld a Northampton County trial judge's refusal to suppress wireless connection records obtained by Moravian College campus police in a robbery and assault case.

Defendant Alkiohn Dunkins was convicted by a jury of robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, receiving stolen property and simple assault for attacking two fellow Moravian students and robbing them at gunpoint in their dorm.

According to the Superior Court's Feb. 12 precedential opinion, campus police had Moravian's director of systems engineering compile a list of all the users who logged on to the campus' wireless access point near the dorm where the incident occurred. They discovered that, at the time of the robbery, there were only three individuals logged onto the campus Wi-Fi at that location that did not live in that building⁠—two were female and the third was Dunkins, whose cellphone was set to automatically connect to the network whenever it was within range.

Dunkins claimed the campus police conducted an illegal search and invaded his privacy by tracking his physical movements through cell site location information (CSLI), likening his case to the U.S. Supreme Court case Carpenter v. United States, in which the justices held that law enforcement invaded a defendant's privacy by compelling wireless carriers to provide a record his historical CSLI for a four-month period.

But Judge Correale Stevens, writing for the Superior Court panel, said Dunkins "does not appreciate the difference between the CSLI obtained in Carpenter and the Wi-Fi data obtained in this case."

"Whereas CSLI tracks an individual's movements at all times of the day regardless of where he travels, the Wi-Fi data in this case is only collected when an individual logs onto the campus wireless network and is present on the Moravian campus," Stevens said.

"We agree with the trial court's observation that the Moravian Wi-Fi network is confined to the college campus and offered as an available option to students and faculty," Stevens said. "When college officials seek to determine which students are logged on to the network near a particular wireless access point at a particular time, the private wireless network functions similarly to a security camera that may exist at the college. As such, the decision in Carpenter does not invalidate the warrantless search in this case."

Stevens was joined by President Judge Jack Panella and Judge Victor Stabile.

The panel further reasoned that the Carpenter ruling did not invalidate "tower dump" requests by law enforcement, which are designed to identify all the devices that were connected to one particular cell site during a particular time period. The Moravian police's use of the Wi-Fi data was similar to that procedure, Stevens said.

"The campus police did not target a specific individual or attempt to track an individual's movements but instead merely sought to compile a list of all the devices signed on to the Wi-Fi in the Hassler dorm at the time of the robbery," Stevens said. "Using the process of elimination, campus officials were able to determine that, at the time of the robbery, appellant was the only male student logged on to campus Wi-Fi at the Hassler dorm who did not reside in that location."

Stevens also said Dunkins consented to Moravian's internet use policy, which clearly stated that the college had the right to collect and discloses all internet data composed, transmitted or received through the campus' computer system and its network connections. In addition, he signed a similar "computing resources" agreement in exchange for the right to use the campus Wi-Fi.

"As such, appellant agreed to surrender some privacy rights to have his cellphone access Moravian's Wi-Fi network to assist him in his pursuit of a college degree at Moravian," Stevens said. "Appellant was not required to log in or to maintain a constant connection to the campus Wi-Fi network, but could have chosen to have his device access the internet through a wireless carrier or simply signed off the Moravian wireless network temporarily to avoid transmitting location data."

Stevens said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's 2013 ruling in Medlock v. Trustees of Indiana University and 2019 ruling in United States v. Adkinson were persuasive in that regard.

In Adkinson, the federal appeals court found that the defendant provided voluntary consent to a search of his cell-site information when he signed a user agreement with T-Mobile that gave the company the right to disclose that information "'when reasonably necessary to protect its rights, interests, property, or safety, or that of others.'"

In Medlock, the court determined that the defendant had not been subjected to an illegal search of his dorm room because consenting to room searches was an agreed-to condition of living in an on-campus dormitory.

Stevens also pointed to the Fourth Circuit's ruling in United States v. Simons, in which the court found that an employee had no legitimate expectation of privacy when using his employer's internet network because the employer was clear in its policy that it would audit, inspect and monitor all internet activity.

Counsel for Dunkins, Michael Diamondstein of Philadelphia, said that, especially given the ubiquity of Wi-Fi, the ruling has major privacy implications.

"While I have a great amount of respect for the Superior Court and specifically these three fine judges, they missed the broader issue, which is that they've now allowed is geotracking," he said. "Any person who connects to Wi-Fi can be tracked literally to the foot."

Rebecca Kulik of the Northampton County District Attorney's Office could not be reached for comment.