Twitter You Tube Facebook Autobodynews Linked In

Wednesday, 28 August 2013 17:34

NJ Supreme Court Says Warrants Required for Cell Phone Location Data, Court: “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy”

The New Jersey Supreme Court has found unanimously in State v. Earls that New Jersey residents have a constitutional right of privacy in their cell phone location data, and that law enforcement officers must obtain a search warrant in order to access the data. In the Earls case, the police were searching for a suspected burglar and his girlfriend. In that effort, they contacted a cell phone service provider. At three different times that evening, the service provider gave information about the location of the suspected burglar’s cell phone. After the Appellate Division concluded that defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell phone location, the Supreme Court held that the New Jersey Constitution protects an individual’s privacy interest in his or her cell phone, and that the police must obtain a warrant based on probable cause (or must qualify for a warrant requirement exception) to obtain location information from a cell phone. The court noted:

“When people make disclosures to phone companies and other providers to use their services, they are not promoting the release of personal information to others. Instead, they can reasonably expect that their personal information will remain private… Today, cell phones can be pinpointed with great precision, but courts are not adept at calculating a person’s legitimate expectation of privacy with mathematical certainty. What is clear is that cell phones are not meant to serve as tracking devices to locate their owners wherever they may be. No one buys a cell phone to share detailed information about their whereabouts with the police.”

If the opinion had found the right to locational privacy from the government under the federal Constitution, Earls could be undermined by subsequent federal court decisions. But the New Jersey Supreme Court has the final say over what New Jersey’s Constitution means. By framing the issue in state constitutional terms, Chief Justice Rabner insulated the decision from further review, and settled an issue in New Jersey that is unsettled across the country by the US Supreme Court’s decision in the GPS privacy case, US v. Jones. Because the state government can exert so much power over individual citizens, the state is often constrained in ways that private companies are not.

Read 936 times