Background: A cellular tower in the USA on Feb. 22, 2024. (Photo by Carlos Kosienski/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images). Inset: District Judge Carlton W. Reeves (United States Sentencing Commission).
A federal judge in Mississippi has ruled that the Trump administration cannot access troves of cellular data containing citizens' information to surveil a select group of people.
"Tower-dump warrants" — as these requests are referred to — are unconstitutional, District Judge Carlton W. Reeves opined in a 30-page order.
The Barack Obama appointee began his order by examining modern technology and how it differs from the Founding Fathers' vision of the country when they drafted the Constitution.
"Digital surveillance has been a huge boon to the government. By leveraging time-and-location data from cellular devices, agents can ascertain the identities of previously unknown suspects" and "investigate and prosecute crime," he wrote. "But digital surveillance can also provide the government with unfettered access into individuals' lives. Such intrusions would have been unthinkable to those 55 men gathered in Philadelphia in 1787."
"Therein lies the problem—the technological resources at the government's disposal unlock efficient and effective ways to solve crime in the twenty-first century, but they also expose individuals' whereabouts at all times, including in sensitive places," he continued. "The Fourth Amendment's protection against expansive government surveillance, nevertheless, must stay true to the Founders' core principles."
The case came before the Southern District of Mississippi after federal law enforcement investigating gang activity in the area of Jackson, Mississippi, alleged that 14 months of violent crime was carried out by "a gang and its rivals." Law enforcement, however, did not know who was perpetrating the crime, and, in February, applied for four search warrants.
These "February warrant applications" sought "time-and-location data from the four cellular providers that control the cell towers near the nine locations where these crimes occurred," the district judge stated.
However, before he was brought in to rule, a magistrate judge denied the request, "holding that tower dumps are impermissible general warrants."
The government went back and "refashioned" those warrant applications, applying for three new ones in June "concerning the same investigation." The warrants were more specific and "more narrowly associated with where a homicide, vehicular theft, and two shootings took place over a two-day period in early 2024."
Again, though, the magistrate judge declined to approve them.
The government sought a review, and Reeves did so. Federal law enforcement contended that the June warrant applications "are definitively particular since they seek only the identifiers of cellular devices found in two or more locations."
Reeves was "unconvinced."
"The locations listed in the applications cover areas that are highly frequented, including but not limited to major highways that service thousands of drivers daily," he noted. "Additionally, the specified time periods for some of the locations fall into rush hour and/or evening hours when there may be even more cars on the road."
Reeves was particularly concerned about federal officials having unlimited access to data from a large number of people who are in no way connected to the underlying investigation.
"Taken together, the Court notes that the products of these warrant applications could produce thousands if not tens of thousands of cellular records," the district judge said. "The Government would have unfettered access to the locations of an unknowable number of individuals and, given the areas targeted by the Government's investigation, individuals could be located near not only highly-frequented areas—hospitals, major highways, the airport—but also highly-sensitive areas—homes, places of worship, and political centers."
The order does not specify the agency that requested the warrants. Reeves also acknowledged that "this decision may thwart certain criminal investigations."
Still, he said of the Founding Fathers, "the gentlemen in Philadelphia knew the Fourth Amendment's protections would come with costs. The cost to law enforcement is the price we pay to be free from arbitrary Government intrusion into our everyday movements."