Uncle Sam seeks time in tower dump data grab case after judge calls it ‘unconstitutional’
The United States is requesting [PDF] a month-long extension to the deadline for its final decision regarding an appeal against a judge’s ruling that obtaining tower dumps is unconstitutional.
The tower dumps requested in this case could reveal the details of thousands of users’ devices…
The term “tower dump” refers to law enforcement obtaining records from cell towers, specifically related to individuals’ locations and connection times, via warrants.
This type of data is typically used to aid investigations into potential crimes. In this case, the US sought such data to see whether suspected violent gang members could feasibly be connected to a string of homicides, shootings, and vehicle thefts over a 14-month period.
Tower dumps can include information on all connections to that tower within windows ranging from ten minutes to one hour. As such, the data returned from these requests would also include that of various individuals who are not of interest to the FBI’s investigation.
United States Magistrate Judge Andrew S Harris denied the feds’ four-warrant request for tower dumps in February, citing incompatibility with the Fourth Amendment.
Fourth Amendment rights under the US Constitution protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The FBI sought the data from towers across nine locations “to help identify or eliminate suspects,” and this data would include phone numbers, unique device identifiers, the dates, times, and duration of each connection, and the types of communication transmitted via the tower, such as SMS or phone call.
Citing case law, Judge Harris denied the FBI’s request in Mississippi. He wrote in his ruling [PDF]: “For starters, while the government has some idea of who may have been involved in one or more of the crimes – the affidavits supporting the warrant applications list seven potential suspects – the government has not presented probable cause to believe that any particular individual committed any of the specific crimes described.
“The warrant applications also arguably present probable cause to believe that the searches will reveal the location data of some unknown perpetrators of the crimes… But this is not enough. If the court were to issue the warrants, it would be authorizing the government to search the data for every cellular device (including cell phones) of every single individual near the crime scenes without a showing of probable cause as to each individual.
“Stated another way, 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.”
Harris went on to say that the tower dumps requested in this case could reveal the details of thousands of users’ devices and would “present the exact sort of ‘general, exploratory rummaging’ that the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent.”
Lawyers representing the US requested an additional 30 days to decide whether to appeal against the judge’s decision. The deadline to lodge its appeal was set for June 20.
They said the government’s request for an extension “is not sought for the purpose of delay,” and was made in good faith. Lawyers for the US argued that the extra time is necessary to properly assess whether a further review of the judge’s ruling is required.
The request for an extension was made on June 17, as first reported by Court Watch, and had not received a response at the time of writing.
Nevada, too
Almost two months after Harris’s ruling, Judge Miranda M Du ruled similarly against a tower dump request by law enforcement in Nevada, citing Fourth Amendment incompatibilities.
Police were trying to build a case against Mesquite resident Cory Spurlock, who was suspected of being involved in crimes related to murder-for-hire and illegal cannabis distribution.
Judge Du said the tower dump request was unconstitutional, citing the same needle-in-a-haystack case law as Harris (United States v. Smith, 110 F.4th 817, 820, 2024), but still allowed the data gathered from the dumps to be used as evidence in the case.
“As to the motion to suppress regarding the tower dump, the court finds that a tower dump is a search and the warrant law enforcement used to get it is a general warrant forbidden under the Fourth Amendment,” Du ruled [PDF].
“That said, because the court appears to be the first court within the Ninth Circuit to reach this conclusion and the good faith exception otherwise applies, the court will not order any evidence suppressed.” ®
READ MORE HERE