Carpenter v. United States Analysis

1. Carpenter and three others were arrested for a string of robberies surrounding the Detroit area as well as other areas around Michigan and Ohio. Carpenter assisted the police in the investigation by providing the phone numbers of some of the other suspects so that they could confirm their involvement through phone records. As stated, the court then citing the SCA provided MetroPCS and Sprint with a court order to turn over these records citing the specific wording of the SCA in which the records may be requested should they provide information for a criminal case. During the trial, Carpenter’s defense ruled that this information was not legally obtained as it violated Mr. Carpenter’s reasonable expectation of privacy, however, that was denied due to the voluntary nature of the documents and Mr. Carpenter’s explicit approval for the collection of such as outlined in the cell phone contract. Carpenter was found guilty on six counts of robbery and six counts of carrying a firearm during a violent crime.
   1. Carpenter was arrested following a series of robberies targeting Radio Shack and T-Mobile stores throughout Ohio and Michigan. While there were many suspects involved with the case, Carpenter’s was the most noteworthy as evidence gathered from him led to the arrest of his corroborators.
   2. Phone records that detailed calls to the phone numbers of other suspects, the numbers of which were provided by Carpenter, and cell data location records obtained from MetroPCS and Sprint. The cell data provided GPS data obtained from cell site connections and termination that showed where calls were being made throughout the duration of them, this confirmed evidence against Carpenter leading to further charges.
   3. By use of the Stored Communications Act, the court were able to, through a simple court order, obtain the records as they were viewed as “relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.” Due to the public nature of the records, and to Stored Communications Act wording, the court was able to obtain the records through court orders rather than a search and seizure warrant.
   4. The information stored when establishing a connection with a cell tower, this can be anything from the time that a cell signal communicated with a tower, and a possible GPS location that can be used to triangulate exactly where the call originated or was terminated from.
   5. Through expert witness testimony from the FBI, Carpenter was shown to be the leader of the robbery operation leading to him being charged with six counts of robbery and six counts of carrying a firearm during a federal crime of violence. During his defense, his team offered a mistrial due to the violation of Mr. Carpenter’s reasonable expectation of privacy that was violated when the courts issued a court order for sensitive phone records rather than writing a formal search warrant, however the motion was denied under the wording of that Carpenter lacked an expectation of privacy due to cell phone contracts stating that the phone user is voluntarily giving that data, meaning that it is technically public knowledge and therefore not protected information by anyone except the phone company.
   6. Following an appeal for the case, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals argued that again Carpenter lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy and again said that the acquiring of cell data relating to the case was constitutional and reasonable. Carpenter again was found guilty.

2. The Stored Communications Act and Amendment Four of the Constitution while appearing similar hold different opinions about both privacy and the sharing of private data. Amendment Four while not specifically saying that a citizen is guaranteed any level of privacy, protects those citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, or in modern terms requiring the government to obtain a warrant before doing (almost) anything regarding another person. The Stored Communications Act however lists many discrepancies pertaining to business stored records about another person, opposed to records that the customer provides. 18 U.S. Code § 2702 more specifically even documents the times at which companies can and should voluntarily disclose these records should the assist in the safeguarding of said person, provide information to recover a missing person, or provide information to an ongoing investigation, etc. The key difference is that there is not an expectation of privacy under the SCA due to the origination of these records being granted with the explicit permission from the customer to the company (2702).

3. Katz v. United States concluded that the Fourth Amendment pertains to people, not places, requiring a warrant to search through a person’s possessions or documents opposed to a warrant for the building or location. This resolution could be considered towards a corporation in the sense that you wouldn’t write a search warrant to sweep a building for one person’s information, rather writing a warrant to uncover information about a specific person. With this in mind, the resolution of Riley v. California can also be referenced in that the court during that case stated that warrants need to be made to search the contents of one’s phone. However, the FBI did not search Carpenter’s phone but instead phone records that could be obtained both easily/legally that could confirm the information willfully given by Carpenter following his arrest. U.S. v. Miller backs up the acquisition of these records because of that case establishing that a person does not have an expectation of privacy in “information they voluntarily turn over to third parties,” and again in Smith v. Maryland when the court stated that willfully providing information that will be documented in these voluntary records (like a phone call being documented by a cell service’s logs) is not protected as that information is now within the realm of voluntarily provided.

4. This case has presented the notion that all phone records are, to the government, basically public knowledge that they can access whenever they want. While this is a scary mindset, the influx of modern technology that tracks location and movement is not one that is uncommon. While a privacy concern could be presented, the baseline of this concept of voluntarily provided logs being protected from investigation is one that will not hold up as technology continues to improve. Unless regulation regarding the collection of this information is created, something that is highly unlikely to happen as it interferes with these carrier operations, that information will always be collected and always be available to examine due to how those types of records are outlined in the SCA.

5. Throughout a highly technological world, an expectation of privacy is diminished ever so further alongside the further advancement of technology. Any user when agreeing to a terms of service document, acknowledges the collection of their data for the betterment of that company’s services. I agree with the court’s ruling because I personally believe the line has already been drawn with no way of returning without destroying established technological systems. An expectation of privacy for voluntarily provided information attached to records owned by a company would enlist a rabbit hole of privacy issues stemming from all fields of modern life, complicating an individual’s position when interacting with large companies. Unfortunately, as technology increases, privacy will decrease, and in situations like this I believe the lesser evil is to give in slightly. Who’s to say if we argued privacy about this topic that another more invasive string of non-protected information just replaced these simple log sheets.

References

Carpenter v. United States. 16-402, 585 U.S. 138 S. Ct. 2206; 201. Argued November 29, 2017, Decided June 22, 2018.

18 U.S. Code § 2702 – Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records. law.cornell.edu