meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
Cato Podcast

Cops Need a Warrant (Usually) for Your Cell Data

Cato Podcast

Cato Institute

Immigration, News, News Commentary, Peace, 424708, Markets, Government, Libertarian, Policy, Politics, Cato, Defense

4.5979 Ratings

🗓️ 22 June 2018

⏱️ 19 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

If the police want your cell-based location, they'll need to first get a warrant, at least most of the time. Cato's Ilya Shapiro and Julian Sanchez comment on the Supreme Court's decision in Carpenter v. United States.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

This is a Cato special podcast. I'm Caleb Brown. The Supreme Court today ruled that when it comes to your cell phone location data held by a third party, the cops generally need a warrant. But in a decision there was more than a hundred pages, most of those pages were devoted to dissents, differing ideas about the reasonable expectation of privacy, property interests in your data, and more.

0:25.2

Cato's Ilia Shapiro and Julian Sanchez break down the ruling of Carpenter, the United States.

0:31.2

There were a string of robberies in the Toledo area and police arrested someone.

0:40.9

There was a confession and they began to suspect certain other people, but either they

0:47.7

didn't have probable cause or in any event they did not seek a warrant.

0:51.3

What they did though was ask various cell phone companies for data on the

0:58.9

location of various cell phones that were then traced to their owners. And based on that they found

1:05.2

that the cell phones were pinging off towers in the general area of the

1:09.6

stores, cell phone stores, ironically, that had been robbed and so arrested the people who were

1:15.4

the owners of those cell phones and ultimately got convictions and Mr. Carpenter challenged

1:21.4

his conviction on the ground that the police conducted a search of his data

1:29.3

improperly.

1:30.3

They needed a warrant and this is what went up to the Supreme Court which

1:33.9

decided five to four that indeed this was a violation of the fourth amendment

1:39.0

extending somewhat the reasonable expectation of privacy tests that's been around for more than 50 years now

1:45.9

That you don't give up your privacy when even a third party has some of that data at least in this context when we're talking about cell phone

1:53.9

location data the court was very cautious John Roberts the chief justice

1:58.8

wrote the majority opinion joined by the the four Democratic

2:02.2

appointees saying we're not setting new doctrine.

2:06.5

This is a narrow ruling doesn't affect other technologies, doesn't affect

2:10.3

national security related investigations, but at least in the context of cell phone data,

2:15.8

you maintain a privacy interest in that and the police need a warrant.

...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Cato Institute, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Cato Institute and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.