Supreme Court redefines reasonable expectation of privacy in Carpenter v. US ruling

The ruling is a landmark in privacy rights, as it overturns the previous standard known as the “third party doctrine.” The “third party doctrine” is the theory that giving up information voluntarily to third parties, such as cell phone or internet service providers, is not protected by the fourth amendment. This is because of the voluntary nature of providing the third party your information.

The case of Carpenter v. United States began with the arrest of four men, one of whom was Timothy Carpenter. The men were all connected to a series of armed robberies. One of the men arrested gave up Carpenter’s cell phone number to the FBI, along with other participants’ information.

When the FBI requested Carpenter's records, they did not do so with a warrant. The FBI instead applied for court orders which requested “transactional records” for the accounts linked to the phone numbers, which the judges decided to grant under the Stored Communications Act of 1986 (SCA).

The Fourth Amendment is the fourth article in the Bill of Rights, which is an integral section of the United States Constitution. The amendment states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

SCA enables law enforcement agencies to require telecommunication companies to provide certain records when “specific and articulable facts show that there are reasonable grounds to believe the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.”

SCA allows agencies to forego a warrant entirely, only requiring a subpoena and prior notice in order to subject a telecommunications company to disclose a customer’s data.

In the case of Carpenter v. Unites States, they obtained Cell Site Location Information.

Some of the records obtained by the government include time-stamped data which approximates the location of a user based on their access to “cell sites.” These sites are radio antennas which provide users with a cellular connection. Every time a device connects to a cell site, a time stamp and approximation of the user’s location is made for the cell phone service provider’s purposes.
 
This data was used to convict Carpenter on charges of armed robbery, as it connected the various robberies with his time-stamped location data. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Carpenter. Ultimately, the question to be answered in this case was whether or not the warrantless search and seizure of cell phone records which include locations of users violated the fourth amendment or not.

In order to understand whether or not Carpenter's rights were violated, one must first understand the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard that has been established by legal precedent.

The Katz v. United States ruling established the "Reasonable Expectation of Privacy" test. Furthermore, the case established what constituted a search in regard to intangible electronic evidence such as telecommunications data.

Ultimately, someone who is inside of a private enclosed space such as a telephone booth has a reasonable expectation of privacy. If a recording device is placed on the outside of that private space, then it is an unconstitutional search because the user has the right to assume that their conversation is not being broadcast.

They have entered the space and closed the door, then paid a fee for the service. They are entitled to the privacy of that data because they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

However, there also exists the "Third Party Doctrine," which further complicates these scenarios.

The “third party doctrine” is the theory that giving up information voluntarily to third parties, such as cell phone or internet service providers, is not protected by the fourth amendment. This is because of the voluntary nature of providing the third party your information.

This benchmark was established in the cases of United States v. Miller and Smith v. Maryland. The cases involved the disclosure of bank records and pen registers (telecommunications records) to law enforcement without use of a warrant respectively.

Despite the federal statute being valid, the court decided that the SCA was not applicable to cell site location information. The seizure of Carpenter’s data was illegal, and the decision to convict him was reversed and remanded in a 5-4 vote.

The case serves as a major change to privacy rights, and only time will tell how this will alter the landscape of privacy.  

Time will tell how this ruling is interpreted and implemented in protecting privacy rights. For now, it serves as a major change in the way the Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourth Amendment.