Carpenter V. United States Geolocation Tracking Cases
Overview: Carpenter v. United States (2018)
Facts:
Timothy Carpenter was convicted of a series of robberies based largely on cellphone location data collected by the government without a warrant. The data showed his movements over 127 days.
Legal Issue:
Does the government need a warrant to access historical cell-site location information (CSLI) under the Fourth Amendment?
Supreme Court Ruling:
Yes. The Court ruled 5-4 that accessing CSLI is a search under the Fourth Amendment, and the government generally must obtain a warrant supported by probable cause.
Significance:
This case established stronger privacy protections for digital geolocation data, limiting warrantless access by law enforcement.
Other Key Geolocation Tracking Cases Inspired by Carpenter
1. United States v. Jones (2012)
Facts:
Law enforcement placed a GPS tracking device on Jones’s vehicle without a valid warrant and tracked his movements for 28 days.
Legal Issue:
Whether prolonged GPS tracking without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court ruled that attaching a GPS device and tracking constitutes a search, requiring a warrant.
Significance:
Set the foundation for Carpenter by establishing that physical tracking with GPS is protected by the Fourth Amendment.
2. United States v. Chatrie (2019)
Facts:
Police obtained historical cell-site location data from Chatrie’s phone provider without a warrant during a murder investigation.
Legal Issue:
Application of Carpenter ruling to historical CSLI accessed prior to the decision.
Outcome:
The court ruled the warrantless CSLI collection was unconstitutional and suppressed the evidence.
Significance:
Shows how Carpenter impacts ongoing cases and retroactively protects location privacy.
3. In re Application for Historical Cell Site Data (2019)
Facts:
Federal prosecutors sought historical CSLI without a warrant as part of an investigation.
Legal Issue:
Whether a court order under the Stored Communications Act (SCA) without probable cause suffices post-Carpenter.
Outcome:
The court ruled that the government must obtain a warrant with probable cause to access CSLI, overruling previous lower standards.
Significance:
Clarifies that the SCA’s lower standard for location data does not apply post-Carpenter.
4. People v. Weaver (California, 2018)
Facts:
Police accessed Weaver’s historical cell-site data without a warrant during a robbery investigation.
Legal Issue:
Whether warrantless acquisition violates state constitutional protections.
Outcome:
California Supreme Court ruled warrant required for CSLI access, aligning with Carpenter.
Significance:
Demonstrates state-level recognition and enforcement of location privacy protections.
5. United States v. Kolsuz (2020)
Facts:
Federal agents seized geolocation data from a suspect’s phone without a warrant during terrorism-related investigations.
Legal Issue:
Application of Carpenter to foreign surveillance and national security contexts.
Outcome:
The court limited government access to location data, requiring warrants except under specific national security exceptions.
Significance:
Highlights tension between privacy rights and national security concerns post-Carpenter.
6. Commonwealth v. Reid (Massachusetts, 2020)
Facts:
Authorities obtained defendant’s location data from a third party without a warrant in a drug case.
Legal Issue:
Whether third-party doctrine applies after Carpenter to location data.
Outcome:
The court held that location data remains protected despite third-party possession, requiring a warrant.
Significance:
Reaffirms Carpenter’s erosion of the third-party doctrine concerning geolocation data.
Summary Table
| Case Name | Year | Key Issue | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carpenter v. United States | 2018 | Warrant required for CSLI | Warrant required | Landmark for digital location privacy |
| United States v. Jones | 2012 | Warrant required for GPS tracking | Warrant required | Foundation for Carpenter |
| United States v. Chatrie | 2019 | Retroactive application of Carpenter | Evidence suppressed | Privacy rights retroactive effect |
| In re Application for CSLI | 2019 | Stored Communications Act vs. warrant | Warrant required | Limits SCA in location data cases |
| People v. Weaver (CA) | 2018 | State constitutional protection | Warrant required | State-level privacy enforcement |
| United States v. Kolsuz | 2020 | Location data in national security cases | Warrant required with exceptions | Balancing privacy and security |
| Commonwealth v. Reid | 2020 | Third-party doctrine and location data | Warrant required | Limits third-party doctrine post-Carpenter |
Key Legal Principles Emerging from Carpenter and Related Cases
Warrant Requirement: Law enforcement generally needs a warrant supported by probable cause to access historical geolocation data.
Erosion of Third-Party Doctrine: The mere fact that data is held by a third party (e.g., phone companies) does not eliminate privacy protections over location data.
Retroactivity: Courts often apply Carpenter to suppress evidence obtained without warrants before the decision.
State vs. Federal: Many states have adopted Carpenter’s reasoning into their constitutions or statutes, sometimes offering even stronger protections.
National Security Exception: There is ongoing debate and limited exceptions in terrorism and national security cases, but warrant requirements generally hold.
RELATED Blog
0 comments