On November 29th the US Supreme Court will consider the case of US v. Carpenter where “police acquired the data from Carpenter’s wireless carriers without a warrant showing probable cause” which led to Timothy Carpenter’s conviction that he was “leading a gang of robbers” and the “prosecution produced cellphone-tower data that tracked the whereabouts of Carpenter’s cellphone for more than four months and placed him at or near the sites of a string of armed robberies.”
The Washington Post had an article written by Stephen Sachs on November 26, 2017 who was Maryland’s Attorney General from 1979 to 1987 entitled “The Supreme Court’s privacy precedent is outdated” who commented that in 1979 he “argued and won Smith v. Maryland when I was Maryland’s attorney general. I believe it was correctly decided. But I also believe it has long since outlived its suitability as precedent.” As Mr. Sachs pointed out, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeal relied on Smith v. Maryland in the Carpenter case.
Mr. Sachs supports a new legal construction of privacy in 2017 relying on Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her concurring opinion in the 2012 case of US v. Jones which held:
….that the clandestine and warrantless attachment of a GPS tracking device to a defendant’s car was an unconstitutional search.
…the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks.
People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers; the URLs that they visit and the email addresses with which they correspond to their internet service providers; and the books, groceries and medications they purchase to online retailers.
It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules in the US v. Carpenter.
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney.
This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary.
The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites.
In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.