"This opinion strongly reinforces the strength of our constitutional privacy rights in the digital age," the ACLU said. (Photo: sj carey/flickr/cc)
Jul 13, 2016
For the first time, a federal judge has thrown out evidence obtained by police without a warrant using the controversial "Stingray" device that mimics cell phone towers to trick nearby devices into connecting with them, revealing private information.
U.S. District Judge William Pauley said the defendant's rights were violated when the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) used a Stingray to figure out his home address during a drug investigation.
Pauley rejected the evidence, writing, "The use of a cell-site simulator constitutes a Fourth Amendment search.... Absent a search warrant, the government may not turn a citizen's cell phone into a tracking device."
"This opinion strongly reinforces the strength of our constitutional privacy rights in the digital age."
--Nathan Freed Wessler, ACLU
The ACLU said it was the first time such a ruling has been issued and was a significant victory for privacy rights. The civil liberties group has long criticized the rampant secrecy surrounding Stingray use by law enforcement, estimating that at least 66 agencies in 24 states and the District of Columbia have the devices, but warning that the tally "dramatically underrepresents" actual use of Stingrays nationwide.
"After decades of secret and warrantless use of Stingray technology by federal law enforcement to track phones, a federal court has finally held the authorities to account," said Nathan Freed Wessler, staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. "The feds are now firmly on notice that when they hide their intent to use invasive surveillance technology from courts and fail to get a warrant, their evidence will be suppressed. This opinion strongly reinforces the strength of our constitutional privacy rights in the digital age."
In March, a Maryland appeals court became the first appellate court to throw out Stingray evidence.
"We conclude that people have a reasonable expectation that their cell phones will not be used as real-time tracking devices by law enforcement, and--recognizing that the Fourth Amendment protects people and not simply areas--that people have an objectively reasonable expectation and privacy in real-time cell phone location information," the panel wrote at the time.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Our Summer Campaign is now underway, and there’s never been a more urgent time for Common Dreams to be as vigilant as possible. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
For the first time, a federal judge has thrown out evidence obtained by police without a warrant using the controversial "Stingray" device that mimics cell phone towers to trick nearby devices into connecting with them, revealing private information.
U.S. District Judge William Pauley said the defendant's rights were violated when the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) used a Stingray to figure out his home address during a drug investigation.
Pauley rejected the evidence, writing, "The use of a cell-site simulator constitutes a Fourth Amendment search.... Absent a search warrant, the government may not turn a citizen's cell phone into a tracking device."
"This opinion strongly reinforces the strength of our constitutional privacy rights in the digital age."
--Nathan Freed Wessler, ACLU
The ACLU said it was the first time such a ruling has been issued and was a significant victory for privacy rights. The civil liberties group has long criticized the rampant secrecy surrounding Stingray use by law enforcement, estimating that at least 66 agencies in 24 states and the District of Columbia have the devices, but warning that the tally "dramatically underrepresents" actual use of Stingrays nationwide.
"After decades of secret and warrantless use of Stingray technology by federal law enforcement to track phones, a federal court has finally held the authorities to account," said Nathan Freed Wessler, staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. "The feds are now firmly on notice that when they hide their intent to use invasive surveillance technology from courts and fail to get a warrant, their evidence will be suppressed. This opinion strongly reinforces the strength of our constitutional privacy rights in the digital age."
In March, a Maryland appeals court became the first appellate court to throw out Stingray evidence.
"We conclude that people have a reasonable expectation that their cell phones will not be used as real-time tracking devices by law enforcement, and--recognizing that the Fourth Amendment protects people and not simply areas--that people have an objectively reasonable expectation and privacy in real-time cell phone location information," the panel wrote at the time.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
For the first time, a federal judge has thrown out evidence obtained by police without a warrant using the controversial "Stingray" device that mimics cell phone towers to trick nearby devices into connecting with them, revealing private information.
U.S. District Judge William Pauley said the defendant's rights were violated when the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) used a Stingray to figure out his home address during a drug investigation.
Pauley rejected the evidence, writing, "The use of a cell-site simulator constitutes a Fourth Amendment search.... Absent a search warrant, the government may not turn a citizen's cell phone into a tracking device."
"This opinion strongly reinforces the strength of our constitutional privacy rights in the digital age."
--Nathan Freed Wessler, ACLU
The ACLU said it was the first time such a ruling has been issued and was a significant victory for privacy rights. The civil liberties group has long criticized the rampant secrecy surrounding Stingray use by law enforcement, estimating that at least 66 agencies in 24 states and the District of Columbia have the devices, but warning that the tally "dramatically underrepresents" actual use of Stingrays nationwide.
"After decades of secret and warrantless use of Stingray technology by federal law enforcement to track phones, a federal court has finally held the authorities to account," said Nathan Freed Wessler, staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. "The feds are now firmly on notice that when they hide their intent to use invasive surveillance technology from courts and fail to get a warrant, their evidence will be suppressed. This opinion strongly reinforces the strength of our constitutional privacy rights in the digital age."
In March, a Maryland appeals court became the first appellate court to throw out Stingray evidence.
"We conclude that people have a reasonable expectation that their cell phones will not be used as real-time tracking devices by law enforcement, and--recognizing that the Fourth Amendment protects people and not simply areas--that people have an objectively reasonable expectation and privacy in real-time cell phone location information," the panel wrote at the time.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.