Federal Court in Mississippi Rejects Search Warrants for Cell-Tower Data

Can the Government Access “An Entire Haystack Because It May Contain a Needle?”

​The drafters of the U.S. Constitution could not have imagined Google, Apple, and cell-site technologies that can vacuum up the recorded movements of thousands of people. Still smarting from the British colonial practice of ransacking rows of homes and warehouses with “general warrants,” the founders wrote the Fourth Amendment to require that warrants must “particularly” describe “the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
 
Courts are still grappling with this issue of “particularity” in geofence warrants – technology that analyzes mass data to winnow out suspects. Now a federal court in Mississippi has come down decisively against non-particular searches in location-and-time based cell tower data.
 
To reach this conclusion, Judge Andrew S. Harris had to grapple with a Grand Canyon of circuit splits on this question. His opinion is a concise and clear dissection of divergent precedents from two higher circuit courts.
 
Harris begins with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia in United States v. Chatrie (2024), which held that because people know that tech companies collect and store location information, that a defendant has no reasonable expectation of privacy.” The Fourth Circuit reached its decision, in part, because Google users must “opt in to Location History” to enable Google to track their locations.
 
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans took the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning and chopped it up for jambalaya. The Fifth drew heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 United States v. Carpenter opinion – which held that the government’s request for seven days’ worth of location tracking from a man’s wireless carrier constituted an unconstitutional search.
 
This data, the Supreme Court reasoned, deserves protection because it provides an intimate window into a person’s life, revealing not only his particular movements, but through them his “familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.”’ Despite a long string of cases holding that people have no legitimate expectation of privacy when they voluntarily turn over personal information to third parties, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a warrant was needed in this case.
 
The Fifth followed up on Carpenter’s logic with a fine distinction in United States v. Smith (2024): “As anyone with a smartphone can attest, electronic opt-in processes are hardly informed and, in many instances, may not even be voluntary.” That court concluded that the government’s acquisition of Google data must conform to the Fourth Amendment.
 
The Fifth thus declared that geofence warrants are modern-day versions of general warrants and are therefore inherently unconstitutional. That finding surely rattled windows in every FBI, DEA, and local law enforcement agency in the United States.
 
Judge Harris worked from these precedents when he was asked to review four search-warrant applications for location information from a data dump from a cell tower. The purpose of the request was not trivial. An FBI Special Agent wanted to see if he could track members of a violent street gang implicated in a number of violent crimes, including homicide. The government wanted the court to order four cell-service provides to produce data for 14 hours for every targeted device.   
 
Judge Harris wrote that the government “is essentially asking the Court to allow it access to an entire haystack because it may contain a needle. But the Government lacks probable cause both as to the needle’s identifying characteristics and as to the many other flakes of hay in the stack … the haystack here could involve the location data of thousands of cell phone users in various urban and suburban areas.”
 
So Judge Harris denied the warrant applications.
 
Another court in another circuit may have well come to the opposite conclusion. Such a deep split on a core constitutional issue is going to continue to deliver contradictory rulings until it is resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime, Judge Harris – a graduate of the University of Mississippi Law School – brings to mind the words of another Mississippian, William Faulkner: “We must be free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it.”

DONATE & HELP US PROTECT YOUR PRIVACY RIGHTS