Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Privacy The Courts

'Tower Dump' Warrants Ruled Unconstitutional (thehill.com) 49

Posted by BeauHD from the your-phone-your-privacy dept.
alternative_right shares a report from The Hill: A federal judge in Mississippi ruled Wednesday that "tower dump" warrants are unconstitutional, declining to reverse a lower court decision refusing the government's request to obtain the search warrants in a series of violent crime investigations. A "tower dump" involves cellphone companies providing law enforcement with access to the time and location data of all mobile devices connected to specific cell towers during a designated time window.

Law enforcement had sought approval for several of these search warrants as part of criminal investigations into gang-related activity in the Jackson, Miss., area last year, arguing the data could help identify all those potentially involved, particularly in incidents with unknown suspects. A magistrate judge denied the applications, holding that "tower dumps" are impermissible general warrants. The district judge agreed. The order repeatedly referenced the Supreme Court's recent decision in Chatrie v United States, in which the majority held that geofence warrants require constitutional privacy protections.

"With this information, the Government asserts that it will be able to identify all potential suspects," Judge Carlton Reeves wrote in a 30-page order (PDF). "Even so, law enforcement would also have access to the cellular records of countless individuals, the vast majority of whom were merely passing by a location at the 'wrong' time."

"That is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment," the judge concluded.

'Tower Dump' Warrants Ruled Unconstitutional More | Reply

'Tower Dump' Warrants Ruled Unconstitutional

Comments Filter:

  • So Flock too? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bodhammer ( 559311 ) on Thursday August 06, 2026 @06:31PM (#66276660)
    "“Even so, law enforcement would also have access to the cellular records of countless individuals, the vast majority of whom were merely passing by a location at the ‘wrong’ time.”

    “That is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment,” the judge concluded."

    So would not the same logic apply to Flock cameras?

    • No. (Score:5, Informative)

      by abulafia ( 7826 ) on Thursday August 06, 2026 @07:24PM (#66276768)
      There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. Cell phones are different because they're considered private communications despite using public airwaves.

      There have been attempts to get precedent that automated, continuous monitoring is qualitatively different than a cop standing outside watching you, with unfortunately mixed results.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by acroyear ( 5882 )

        indeed. this is more akin to the more abusive ideas proposed for the PATRIOT act but not implemented. In what we got, they could ask the phone companies and 'cloud' (we didn't call it that at the time) companies for all the info on a specific person without a specific warrant on the person themself. And yeah that was bad enough to be sure, especially because the company that turned over the data didn't have to tell you they did it (all part of trying to catch them without them knowing they're being caught,

    • Flock is much worse. They don't even have a warrant in most cases.

      • That battle is lost. Your usage of a public roadway on a licensed motor vehicle in most states clearly loses the individual the right to privacy and security of personal effects for anything exterior to the vehicle and exposes you to simple means of denying you right to privacy of things within with a very minor traffic stop. People walking on the sidewalk have just a bit more security but dare stumble in sight of police and even the walker is stopped. It is insane you need to be in leased or owned ho

    • Re:So Flock too? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Local ID10T ( 790134 ) <ID10T.L.USER@gmail.com> on Thursday August 06, 2026 @07:37PM (#66276790) Homepage

      No, unfortunately not.

      In the Supreme Court ruling, the Court specifically addressed the issue that the purpose for which the information was shared was relevant to the establishment of a privacy interest.

      Cell phone information is shared with the cell tower operators as a necessary function of the cellular system: your phone wont work if the towers do not know how to route the data to you. You maintain a 4th amendment privacy interest in the information, even though it is shared with third parties.

      Your license plate number is shared for the purpose of identifying your vehicle to police/government authorities. You do not have a 4th amendment privacy interest in keeping it from the police/government authorities.

      We will have to find other ways of getting Flock out of our lives. It will probably take passing new laws to do it.

      • I don't deny this is where we are at, legally, but it is quite the circular argument at its core.

        It's ok to track your license plate, because you are required to display a license plate for tracking.

        • Re:So Flock too? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Woeful Countenance ( 1160487 ) on Thursday August 06, 2026 @10:46PM (#66276932)

          It's ok to track your license plate, because you are required to display a license plate for tracking.

          The legal justification is that the public roadways were financed by public money (taxes) and maintained by governments (local, state, or federal). So, in effect, some government owns the roadway and can set rules for who can use it, which includes requiring identification tags. (And fees for those tags.)

          If you operate a vehicle only on private property, it doesn't need a license plate, and you don't need a license to drive it.

          • So the airwave spectrum is publicly allocated through taxes. Light is also in the electromagnetic spectrum. Your phone is broadcasting a MAC address(s) on that publicly allocated spectrum. Is that not the same fundamental thing? Or are you saying that because you have a phone or a licence plate, you are given consent to be surveilled?

            I don't think having a visible licence plate or a broadcast MAC address gives the government the right to hoover up everything and put it in searchable databases just

            • The Supreme Court said that cellular telephone location data is covered by the 4th amendment right to privacy -they did not say anything about vehicle license plates in this particular case, so the rest is just speculation.

          • It's ok to track your license plate, because you are required to display a license plate for tracking.

            The legal justification is that the public roadways were financed by public money (taxes) and maintained by governments (local, state, or federal). So, in effect, some government owns the roadway and can set rules for who can use it, which includes requiring identification tags. (And fees for those tags.)

            If you operate a vehicle only on private property, it doesn't need a license plate, and you don't need a license to drive it.

            The public vs private distinction is used, yes, but it is no way, shape or form allows the government to "set rules" that infringe on your Constitutional rights. Can police officers strip search you in the street without cause? Can cameras x-ray into your car? Can they place tracking devices on your car? Fingerprint the tires? Use facial recognition on you without your consent or knowledge or any suspicion of a crime? There are endless ways to invade someone's privacy in public, it's not a free-for-all for

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by T34L ( 10503334 )
        I don't even like that read. I'd argue that the license plate number is shared for purpose of identifying your vehicle in case of an accident/crime committed using the vehicle. When license plates were first adopted into law and practice, there was absolutely no way to comprehensively track random location of random pepole, so you can't argue that tracking everyone everywhere all the time; a relatively new feature that only became plausible in the last twenty years or so, was the intent in the first place.

      • We will have to find other ways of getting Flock out of our lives. It will probably take passing new laws to do it.

        Good idea. That would be a more longterm solution.

        In my area we got rid of them by putting political pressure on the City Council to cancel the contract. That happened as soon as it was publicized how many they had installed without public debate. It surprises me how many cities tolerate it.

        • In my area we got rid of them by putting political pressure on the City Council to cancel the contract.

          I have seen them simply put the cameras on non-city owned property to get around having the city council vote them down. They put them on Federal, State, County, and even privately owned property.

          • There's no Federal law that supercedes local law on this issue. Unless you have a State law that explicitly authorizes it you can ban it by local ordinance.

            • Canceling a contract is not the same as passing an ordinance against something.

              Moreover, if you look at the wording when the do actually pass an ordinance, most of the time they only ban the installation on city owned property. They do not address the placement of flock cameras on Federal, State, County, or Private property.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Marful ( 861873 )
      Searching and obtaining data from flock cameras, is in fact unconstitutional absent a warrant, specifically describing the incident being searched. The courts already ruled in multiple instances about this. Another specific case is Carpenter v. United States (2018).

  • Nice. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Shakes Fist ( 10502847 ) on Thursday August 06, 2026 @06:37PM (#66276670)
    I like to see when judges grow a pair. Makes a welcome change.

  • All good (Score:3)

    by WolfgangVL ( 3494585 ) on Thursday August 06, 2026 @07:15PM (#66276740)

    We'll just triangulate every person in the vicinity via the bluetooth, tps sensors, license plates, and facial recog tools onboard the 18 flock cameras we quietly installed on this block while nobody was looking and pretend that data is error proof and totally constitutional because we're partnering with a "private company" to obtain the info.

  • Even so, law enforcement would also have access to the cellular records of countless individuals, the vast majority of whom were merely passing by a location at the 'wrong' time

    What if, instead of asking: "Give us the list of everybody using this tower during this period", police asked for something narrower, like: "Give us the list of everybody using this tower during this period, and this other tower at this other period" (which is, what police would've done themselves)? What would make the request palata

  • The bill will be paid. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Smonster ( 2884001 ) on Thursday August 06, 2026 @10:09PM (#66276900)
    And that there folks is what separates us from the likes of China and Russia. In those countries the laws exist to be enforced against the citizenry. In a constitutional democratic republic the law is enforced against the various arms of the government as well.

    Justice may not be blind or a certain someone would be rotting in prison instead of occupying the White House, but checks do exist. They have been rebuked how many times now? And like the Mississippi police even he can only take it so far. Call me naive, but I do believe the day will come when the Trumpists in Washington’s bill will also come due. And pay they will. Trump may die of old age first, but the rest will eventually have to pay for what they have done to our country.

    It has to happen, it’s the only way the rest of the free world can begin to trust us once more.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yeh, its not like you have a masked gestapo grabbing citizens off the street and putting them in detention centres.Oh wait.

    • Did the MAGA hive mind extend what was 2 weeks of flattening the curve to 5 years of isolationism? Were they the maskholes. Were they the trend blockers online. In covid alone the counter arguments are easy to make.
  • "privacy" how is traveling through Privacy? You are Outside. if I stuck a camera out my window and take a snap, would anyone outside claim violation of "privacy"? Could cell phone data solve a LOT of crime? yes. at what cost? at the assumption of being a suspect, Then being unconsidered a suspect like they usually do. like a group of people being taken a picture of, but only one in the picture is the criminal, but others are not, till they go around asking questions. it's tying the hands of LEO"S with petty

    • > We need new laws to make life safer in the US and CATCHING Criminals.

      Violent crime is at historical lows.

      Most of our criminal laws are not enforced. If the police have extra time there is a whole Epstein Client List that needs arresting.

      > tying the hands of LEO"S

      Yes, that is the point of rights. Liberty is not safety. Europe is available for those who prefer safety over Liberty. Europeans who prefer Liberty should be welcome to come here. Cops who distain the rights of citizens should self-deport

  • What are we talking about?

    A "tower dump" involves cellphone companies providing law enforcement with access to the time and location data of all mobile devices connected to specific cell towers during a designated time window.

    What's the issue?

    A magistrate judge denied the applications, holding that "tower dumps" are impermissible general warrants. The district judge agreed. The order repeatedly referenced the Supreme Court's recent decision in Chatrie v United States, in which the majority held that geofence warrants require constitutional privacy protections.

    What's the problem?

    "With this information, the Government asserts that it will be able to identify all potential suspects," Judge Carlton Reeves wrote in a 30-page order (PDF). "Even so, law enforcement would also have access to the cellular records of countless individuals, the vast majority of whom were merely passing by a location at the 'wrong' time."

    So the legal decision is...

    "That is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment," the judge concluded.

    But, it was OK in Washington DC on Jan. 6th because...

    Oh yeah, the buffalo-headed shaman stole Nancy Pelosi's podium, and thus put democracy in America at risk because he (or she) that wields the Speaker of the House's podium rules the country!

    Or something.,.

    • Why did you bring this into the conversation? Did someone say it was bad everywhere but it was ok on Jan 6th?
      • Why did you bring this into the conversation? Did someone say it was bad everywhere but it was ok on Jan 6th?
        Probably b/c Jan 6th, and a persons reaction to it is highly indicative of one's political bias. All those people screaming ACAB, were eerily silent about Ashley Babbitt. Heck, there's still normies convinced a dozen Capital police were beaten to death by angry mobs on that day. So when the people screech about the "carceral state", yet say nothing about Jan 6er's sitting in jail awaiting trial/char

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Marful ( 861873 )
        I'm thinking he brought it up because one of the primary means of identifying the people involved during the J6 incident was Cell Tower Dumps.

        It was also brought up in several court case regarding the J6 defendants, and it was deemed legal and not a 4A violation then.

        Which creates a set of double standards. As a matter of fact, just about everything in the prosecution of the J6'ers, legally is nothing but double standards and blatant constitutional and legal violations. But no one seems to give a shit

  • > Government asserts that it will be able to identify all potential suspects

    They went too far and failed.

    They may be able to identify all suspects but even a clever six year old would ask, "and if they're not carrying an active phone"?

    Geofence warrants were already struck down by SCOTUS and the government's position is arguing about the difference between beige, tan, and taupe.

    Anyway it's a general warrant.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It might help if we ran the MBA's out of Washington." -- Admiral Grace Hopper

Close