By: Zack Zaldman Does the United States government need a warrant to search through your phone records to determine your location? That is the question up for debate in Carpenter v. United States, a potentially landmark case for which the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on November 29th, 2017.
Case Background: In 2011 police arrested four men with suspicion of multiple armed robberies. One of the men gave the FBI not only his cell phone number, but those of his co-conspirators accused of the crime as well (including Carpenter’s number). The FBI then used this info to extract “transactional records” from the phone numbers under a court order, but not a warrant from a judge. This record included date and time of calls on the phone in addition to the location of those phone calls. The FBI then indicted Timothy Carpenter with aiding and abetting robbery based on this location data. Issue: The issue at hand is whether the collection of Carpenter’s cellphone records is constitutional. Without a warrant for the records request, Carpenter and the ACLU argue that the Fourth Amendment protects against the warrantless search and seizure of location records, while the U.S. government argues that a court order granted under the Stored Communications Act is sufficient to obtain Carpenter’s records. Carpenter requested the cellphone location information be suppressed from the case because it was obtained unconstitutionally. The District Court denied the motion to suppress and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision, leading to an appeal heard by the Supreme Court. The justifications for obtaining cellphone records comes from the 1979 Supreme Court decision Smith v. Maryland, stating “a person has no legitimate expectations of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties”. Since all phone information goes through cell providers, this information is technically turned over to third parties as soon as a contract for cell service is signed. Whether this third party doctrine applies to the location from which calls are made however, remains up for debate. Result: If the Court rules in favor of Carpenter it would be a victory for right to privacy advocates and those concerned with the increasing trend of unrestricted digital surveillance. Early signs from the justices during oral arguments seemed to favor Carpenter. Nevertheless, the ultimate verdict remains to be seen and will be forthcoming sometime later this term. Works Cited https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-402 http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/carpenter-v-united-states-2/ http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/29/today-at-scotus-warrantless-cell-phone-t#comment
0 Comments
By: Eleni Christofides
It is difficult to imagine a time (perhaps for college students in particular) when Americans were forbidden from manufacturing, selling and transporting alcohol. But nearly 100 years ago, the passage of the 18th Amendment began the period of Prohibition. This lasted for 13 years, before the 21st Amendment was passed and turned the 18th Amendment into the only constitutional amendment ever to be repealed (1). In honor of the 21st Amendment's 84th anniversary on December 5th, here is a brief legal history of America's short lived period as a dry nation. The 18th Amendment banned the manufacture, sale and transportation of intoxicating beverages, but it did not prohibit individuals from possessing or using such products (2). The Volstead Act, which was intended to function as the federal enforcement mechanism for Prohibition, failed to close these loopholes. Thus, Prohibition laws were not able to eliminate the consumption of alcohol, and instead led to some creative strategies to drink outside of their purview. First, Prohibition included a legal exemption of pharmacists, who were still allowed to sell whiskey to fill prescriptions, and this made pharmacies a convenient front for the innovative bootlegger (2). The law's vagueness when it came to home brewing also led many Americans to take up the hobby of distilling their own liquor or wine. Obviously the law had little impact on Americans' drive to drink, and their resourcefulness led to circumvention of the law—occasionally with grave consequences. The stealing and eventual selling of industrial alcohol, the kind used in paints, solvents and fuels, led the Coolidge Administration to employ a new discouraging method: by having chemists add denaturing formulas that were difficult to reverse, the alcohol became not only foul-tasting, but deadly (3). The addition of poisonous chemicals did not succeed as a deterrent for drinking during Prohibition, but instead became a death sentence for a significant number of people. In 1926, 1,200 New Yorkers fell ill due to the poisonous alcohol, and 400 died; the death toll reached 700 people in 1927 (3). It is difficult to say if Prohibition-era laws truly led to a reduction in alcohol consumption, as statistics from the period were difficult to collect. According to tax stamp records, there may have been a decrease in alcohol use before Prohibition and after, and during the 13 years of the 18th Amendment's existence, some data suggest a decline in alcohol-related diseases (4). However, many localities likely saw increases in alcohol use (2). Therefore, it is most important to note that, not only did the illegality of alcohol lead to a number of horrific poisoning deaths that arguably would not have occurred otherwise, but any benefits it had by reducing alcohol consumption are offset by the increase in alcohol-associated crime. Specifically, the banning of the substance created a national crime syndicate for illegally moving liquor and profiting from it. Gang crime certainly existed before this era, but it operated on a local level; the national nature of Prohibition encouraged the creation of an unprecedented level of nationally organized crime (4). The huge number of Americans involved in bootlegging and the illegal liquor trade also led to a surge in arrests and adjudications; as courtrooms became inundated with criminal cases, plea bargaining became a necessity to keep the system moving, and this began its reign over the use of the trial, which the American criminal justice system still sees today (2). The story of Prohibition's failures has important implications for the fight over currently controlled substances: ultimately, the 18th Amendment attempted to prevent alcohol use by targeting the supply of the product, not the demand for it. Similar tactics have been and continue to be utilized in the War on Drugs enforcement, and given the continued rate of drug use and related arrests, this strategy may become even more reminiscent of America's previous attempts at Prohibition; eventually it may become just as obviously inadequate for addressing substance use in this country, if it has not already done so. References:
|
Archives
March 2018
Categories |