Eddie Guy

Can Your Phone Testify Against You?

Our phones collect data about us that police can use to solve crimes. When does that violate our constitutional right to privacy? 

Timothy Carpenter’s own cell phone gave law enforcement officials all the evidence they needed to send him to prison for 116 years.

According to federal authorities, Carpenter carried out a string of armed robberies of electronics stores in Michigan and Ohio between 2010 and 2011. How do they know? They accessed his cell phone’s location records. Those records show where you are whenever your phone is with you.

The police obtained the location records from Carpenter’s cellular service provider. But his lawyers objected. They said getting the  records without Carpenter’s permission violated his right to privacy. The right to privacy is based on the Fourth Amendment. (See "The Fourth Amendment" sidebar, below.)

Carpenter’s lawyers argue that the police should have had a ­warrant, a court document giving them the right to perform a search.

But lawyers for the federal government say Americans give up their privacy rights when they share personal data with outside companies, such as cellular service providers like Verizon and AT&T.

“This is a case that affects everyone who has a cell phone.”

Now the case—Carpenter v. United States—has made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the nation’s highest court reconvenes this month, it will decide whether authorities need a warrant to obtain someone’s cell phone location records.

How the Court rules could have huge implications for our privacy rights in the digital age. We increasingly rely on high-tech gadgets that collect and store information about us—everything from smartphones and fitness trackers to personal digital assistants like Amazon’s Alexa. But should this data be private? And to what extent can police use it against us? 

“This is a case that affects everyone who has a cell phone,” says Andrew Crocker of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “Where you go with your devices, whether that’s to a friend’s house, to a doctor for a specific condition, or to a place of worship, can reveal a lot of private information about your life.

Privacy vs. Tech 

Figuring out how to apply Fourth Amendment privacy rights in the 21st ­century is not so simple—especially when you consider high-tech devices the ­Founders could never have imagined. It’s a challenge often left to the nine ­justices of the Supreme Court. (See “Meet the Supremes” sidebar, below.)

In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that police need warrants to attach GPS devices to suspects’ cars. And in a 2014 decision, the justices ruled that police officers must have warrants to search people’s cell phones.

NOJUSTICE/E+/Getty Images

A Digital Data Debate

However, when it comes to the data that our devices collect about us—including our location history on smartphones and what Alexa or Apple’s Siri hear us say—police can obtain the records without a warrant in most cases. 

Why? It dates back to a 1979 Supreme Court case in which the justices ruled that people give up their privacy protections when they voluntarily share their information with outside companies. At the time, this meant that if you were to dial a phone number, for example, that information—who you called—would belong to the phone company. It could share that information with the police or anyone else. 

As technology has advanced, this has come to mean that if you do a search on Google or post a photo to Snapchat, that information belongs to your internet service provider.

Do police need a warrant to access the info on our devices?

Law enforcement officials point to the 1979 case as the reason for not needing a warrant to access location records. They say the data is critical for quickly arresting criminal suspects and clearing the innocent. 

Still, privacy advocates are deeply concerned about how much unprotected data our devices collect about us today. After all, they say, a lot has changed since the 1979 ruling. Back then, no one had social media accounts or smartphones. That’s why many people say it’s time for the Court to re-examine whether the Fourth ­Amendment protects those kinds of records.

Protecting Privacy 

The justices may use the Carpenter case as an opportunity to clarify the Fourth Amendment’s meaning in today’s digital age.

“The fact that they agreed to hear the case does point to them doing something interesting,” Crocker says. “The Court has demonstrated a willingness to rethink [privacy protections] as they apply to digital devices and digital data.”

But regardless of how the Court rules, privacy experts say it’s up to each one of us to be mindful of how we use our tech gadgets, because our devices are always tracking us.

“Today,” explains Joel Reidenberg, a ­professor at Fordham University in New York, “it’s more or less naive to expect ­privacy when communicating on any of these devices.” 

CORE QUESTION: How do you think the Supreme Court should rule in this case? Cite evidence from the text.

Visit our new civics site at wethepeople.scholastic.com

The Fourth Amendment 

The Fourth Amendment is one of the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which are known as the Bill of Rights. (See “5-Minute Guide to the Bill of Rights”) The Fourth Amendment protects people against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” 

When the Founders wrote the Fourth Amendment in the late 1700s, they were thinking of British soldiers, who, before the Revolutionary War (1775-1783), could enter colonists’ homes to search and seize their belongings without their permission.

Today, if the police ask to physically search something—whether it’s your house or your car—you have the right to say no. If you agree to a search, you’re effectively giving up your Fourth Amendment rights. Any evidence found can be used against you in court. 

If you refuse, police need a warrant to do a search. To get a warrant, police must convince a judge that there’s “probable cause”­—a reason to suspect a law has been broken.

Meet the Supremes

The Supreme Court has the final say on whether laws are constitutional. The justices serve for life, and their decisions affect all Americans.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

1. Elena Kagan, Associate Justice 

2. Samuel A. Alito Jr., Associate Justice

3. Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice

4. Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice

5.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice

6.  Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice

7. John G. Roberts Jr., Chief Justice 

8. Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice

9. Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice

Text-to-Speech