If the police tap into the local telephone exchange of AT&T to know when a certain phone number becomes active with users without a warrant, the case will face a very difficult suppression motion. There is a safeguard against such processes; the Fourth Amendment. Hypothetically, if the police attempt to stake out a suspect’s location and try to get information whenever someone makes a call from the property, a warrant becomes mandatory. However, it is surprising the courts find that a warrant is unnecessary. The interpretation of the law should coexist along with the context in order to become enforceable. In the case of Davis v. United States, the police linked the defendant to various robbery sites by obtaining signal records from the service provider without a warrant. Although Davis lost the case, the verdict raises some serious questions.
Any data transmitted from a cellphone in signal or media format is still the personal property of the individual. There is a reason why the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant for any search which can lead to a seizure of personalized articles of incriminating nature. The searching of cellphone tower signals without proper legal clearing is a disturbing development. Although the defendant in this case is a criminal, it is difficult to cede that it is so easy to track the whereabouts of a person without a warrant. In an age where people are finding it increasingly difficult to hide their actual locations from different varieties of predators, phone companies are handing out trace information without warrants (Palazzolo, “No Warrant Required for Phone Location Records, Court Rules”).
For example, women often take different trains, or alternate routes to help protect them from stalkers, rapists, and killers in high crime areas. Their safety is at risk if trace information is available freely for anyone with a badge. There are no guarantees that police are incorruptible, or that a phone company will limit the distribution of data only to law enforcement. The context of the Fourth Amendment is to protect all information, or articles from unlawful searches which can lead to the seizure of the person. Moreover, the police have an obligation to keep the citizenry safe. Unlike the peg trace checks on landline phones, cellphones have the potential to provide location related information on the user’s habits and possible activities. For example, if there is a group of protesters gathered in solidarity to oppose any unpopular government policy, the Government can get the tower signal dump for that area to identify and target specific individuals. Cellphone signals are part of cellphone data and the courts cannot ignore this fact.
The Courts should not look at technology as an excuse to by-pass the safeguards of US citizens. Cellphone technology might seem simpler and uncomplicated; however, the Courts should contextualize what a cellphone and its trace signal will represent at the time when the US Constitution came into effect. Only after such a comparison, they should make any ruling. The verdict statement suggesting that cellphone tower signals are just the envelope and not the contents is preposterous. Technology changed and the envelope merged with the contents. This case is not a victory for the police. In fact, they opened a Pandora’s Box which can now lead to unfortunate circumstances.
Works Cited
Palazzolo, Joseph. “No Warrant Required for Phone Location Records, Court Rules” blogs.wsj.com. Wall Street Journal, 13 April 2014. Web. 29 July 2016. <http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/04/13/no-warrant-required-for-phone-location-records-court-rules>
