JOLT Digest

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on GPS Tracking Case
By Amara Osisioma – Edited by Andrew Crocker

U.S. v. Jones, 10-1259 (2011)
Transcript of Oral Arguments

On Tuesday, November 8th, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in U.S. v. Jones to determine whether the police had violated Antoine Jones’ Fourth Amendment rights when they attached a GPS to his car without a warrant and tracked his movements. Though the police initially obtained a warrant for the investigation, it had expired when they placed the GPS on Jones’ car. Under the standard first developed in Katz. v. United States, Fourth Amendment protection extends to an individual’s “reasonable expectation of privacy.”

In applying this standard, the Court must determine whether and how warrantless GPS tracking differs from police tailing an individual by sight in public, which is not subject to Fourth Amendment protection. U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, on behalf of the government, argued that regardless of the method used, police tracking of individuals in public places is constitutional. Yet, despite questioning from several justices suggesting that use of a GPS might constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, Jones’ attorney, Stephen Leckar, instead tried to propose a narrow rule that the installation of the GPS was itself a search or seizure requiring a warrant.

Commentaries by the Center for Democracy & Technology and Professor Orin Kerr for The Volokh Conspiracy highlight the justices’ discomfort with the idea that evolving technology might render current constitutional protections insufficient, a scenario they repeatedly compared to George Orwell’s 1984. At the same time, SCOTUSblog notes that both parties’ inability at oral argument to suggest clear rules for guiding law enforcement’s use of surveillance technology frustrated the justices, leaving the outcome uncertain. The Wall Street Journal suggests that even a decision by the Court requiring a warrant in order to use a GPS tracking device may not change the limits of police surveillance because law enforcement authorities in most states can instead request access to a customer’s cell phone records for tracking purposes without a warrant and without the customer’s knowledge.

(more…)

By Andrew Crocker

AT&T/T-Mobile Merger Blocked by Justice Department

The New York Times reports that the Justice Department is seeking to prevent the proposed merger between AT&T and T-Mobile, which are respectively the second and fourth largest mobile carriers in the United States.  In a suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Justice Department stated that the merger would “substantially lessen competition” in the wireless marketplace and lead to price increases.  According to Bloomberg News, in the event the merger does not go through, Deutsche Telekom, which owns T-Mobile, is contractually entitled to $7 billion in “breakup fees” and other concessions, which would provide AT&T with a significant incentive to fight the government intervention in court.  The Washington Post points out that a court battle will also have high stakes for the Justice Department, which has been criticized for taking a weak approach to possible antitrust issues in recent high-profile mergers, including Comcast’s acquisition of NBC earlier this year.

EFF Challenges Dismissal of NSA Wiretapping Suits

Appearing before a panel of the Ninth Circuit, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has challenged the dismissal of a number of lawsuits focusing on the National Security Agency’s alleged illegal mass wiretapping of Internet traffic through backdoor access to major telecommunications companies, Wired reports.  EFF brought suit against AT&T and other telecoms, but the suits were dismissed after the NSA invoked the state secrets doctrine and Congress passed a law that allowed the President to grant the companies retroactive immunity.  A parallel suit against the NSA itself was dismissed for lack of standing.  According to EFF, allowing the President to grant the telecoms immunity is a violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers, suggesting that the suits should be allowed to proceed on their merits.

Unredacted Wikileaks Files Available Online

A quarter-million U.S. State Department cables contained in an encrypted file belonging to the whistleblower organization Wikileaks are currently available on the web in unredacted form, according to Ars Technica.  The diplomatic cables contain the names of informants and confidential sources, whom the State Department argues may be put in danger by the publication.  Wired reports that Wikileaks, which has before removed potentially sensitive information from documents it leaks to the public, blames its contacts at the British newspaper the Guardian for publishing a book that contained the password to the unredacted file.  However, Der Spiegel reports that the Guardian responded by blaming Wikileaks founder Julian Assange for his own allegedly lax security procedures, a charge also made by Daniel Domscheit-Berg, an ex-spokesman for Wikileaks.

District Court Requires Warrant for Cell Phone Location Data

By Michael Hoven – Edited by Jonathan Allred

In the Matter of an Application of the United States of America for an Order Authorizing the Release of Historical Cell-Site Information, 10-MC-897 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2011)

Slip opinion

The United States District Court of the Eastern District of New York denied the government’s request to order Verizon Wireless to turn over 113 days of customer location data which, according to the government, was relevant to a criminal investigation.

The court held that the Fourth Amendment covered cell phone location data and that law enforcement would need to show probable cause and receive a warrant to access such information. The court decided that cell phone users have a reasonable expectation of privacy that deserves protection from government intrusion. In so holding, the court applied an exception to the third-party-disclosure doctrine that would otherwise give law enforcement access to non-content information (such as location data) that users have already divulged to a third party (such as a service provider), concluding that disclosure of cumulative cell phone location data would be as intrusive as disclosure of the content of cell phone communications.

Ars Technica provides an overview of the case. Techdirt applauds the decision’s protection of cell phone users’ privacy. Wired notes that action by the Supreme Court or the Senate could favor government access over user privacy and limit the effect of the court’s ruling. (more…)

By Sonia McNeil

Myriad Genetics Appeals Ruling on Patentability of Isolated Genes

Myriad Genetics has appealed the Southern District of New York’s ruling in Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO. The district court invalidated seven Myriad Genetics patents relating to the human Breast Cancer Susceptibility Genes 1 and 2 (collectively, “BRCA1/2”), finding that the claimed isolated DNA is not markedly different from native DNA as it exists in nature and therefore constituted unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  On appeal, Myriad Genetics argues (1) that the district court lacked declaratory judgment jurisdiction, and (2) that its composition and method claims cover patent-eligible subject matter.  PatentlyO predicts that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will reverse the lower court; other commentators expect appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to follow.

Third Circuit to Consider Constitutionality of Routine DNA Collection from Arrestees

The Third Circuit has scheduled en banc reargument of the Justice Department’s appeal in United States v. Mitchell.  Mitchell considered the constitutionality of requiring a defendant to submit a DNA sample for analysis and inclusion in a law enforcement database.  Finding “no compelling reason to unduly burden a legitimate expectation of privacy and extend these warrantless, suspicionless searches to those members of society who have not been convicted, but have been arrested and are awaiting proper trial,” the district court held the regulation invalid under the Fourth Amendment. Describing the April oral argument of the appeal, Law.com notes that the Justice Department highlighted statutory safeguards preventing use of the DNA beyond identification, while Mitchell’s attorney argued that the law’s real goal is to expand the DNA database in order to investigate other crimes and to link suspects to evidence in unsolved cases.

Rotterdam Promotes DNA Mist as Aid to Crime Deterrence and Detection

The New York Times reports that the city of Rotterdam, the Netherlands, is promoting the use of a new DNA mist in an effort to deter robberies.  When triggered, the system alerts law enforcement and sprays a fine liquid mist of synthetic DNA carrying markers unique to the location and visible under ultraviolet light.  Although Rotterdam has not yet made an arrest based on DNA mist evidence, law enforcement and shop owners credit the presence of signs warning, “You Steal, You’re Marked” with anecdotally declining crime rates.

Supreme Court Holds That a Government Employer’s Search of an Employee’s Messages on a Work-Related Pager Was Reasonable and Not a Violation of the Fourth Amendment
By Andrew Segna – Edited by Helen He

Ontario v. Quon, No. 08-1332 (U.S. Jun. 17, 2010)
Slip Opinion

The United States Supreme Court reversed a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that held that the Petitioner City of Ontario’s (“Ontario”) search of the Respondent Jeff Quon’s text messages was unreasonable and, therefore, a violation of Quan’s reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court held that the search administered by the Petitioner was reasonable and did not violate the Respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights regarding government employers. To reach this conclusion, Justice Kennedy assumed that Quon did have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Under the standards outlined by the plurality and Justice Scalia’s concurrence in O’Connor v. Ortega, the Supreme Court held that the legitimacy of the City’s reasoning behind the search and the nonexcessive measures utilized demonstrated reasonableness. In so holding, Justice Kennedy recognized  this decision’s potential to determine the larger question surrounding employees’ expectation of privacy with regards to government employers and the rapid growth of information and communication technology today. Kennedy mentioned the changing privacy expectations of employees and arguments for and against increased privacy but asserted that he wanted to avoid the volatile and far-reaching consequence of addressing such an issue. Therefore, he concluded that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in this case in order to narrow the holding.

The New York Times has an overview of the Supreme Court’s decision. SCOTUSBlog analyzed the majority opinion and Justice Scalia’s concurrence in the case and their implications for the question of privacy in the realm of technology. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, who filed an amicus brief in favor of a narrow holding, elaborated upon its support for and concerns about the holding. (more…)