Phone technology helps police secretly track offenders www.privateofficer.com

To contact us Click HERE

Nashville TN Sept 25 2012 The feds knew exactlywhere Trenton Rhodes was going.
As the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration tracked aninterstate marijuana trafficking ring, agents watched as Rhodes went from Nashville to Humboldt County,Calif., an area they called the “marijuanacultivation capitol of California,”according to a federal search warrant.
They could do it because of what was in Rhodes’pocket: a cellphone.
Police are increasingly tracking people’s movements bytapping into GPS technology in modern cellphones, allowing authorities to watcha person’s movement in real time or to follow his or her tracks. But a battlelooms between public safety and privacy rights as challenges wend their waythrough the U.S.court system. Most recently, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled thatpolice didn’t need a warrant to track a Knoxvillesuspect’s movement through his cellphone in a drug investigation.
The appeals court ruled that police didn’t need a warrantbecause users of cellphones don’t have any expectation of privacy since theirlocation is constantly being broadcast to cellular providers.
“It’s accurate to say there are millions of requests (bypolice) to phone companies for tracking vehicles and people. Most of them, ifnot all of them, involve locating people through triangulation of signalsthrough cellphones,” said Christopher Slobogin, a professor at Vanderbilt Law Schoolwho has written extensively about criminal procedure and evidence. “It’s justnot clear whether you need a warrant or if less than that will suffice.”
Rhodes, a music producer, was arrested on a charge ofconspiracy to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana and is accused ofmoving tens of thousands of dollars worth of high-grade marijuana through the Nashville area. Hisattorney, Kimberly Hodde, could not be reached for comment.
But Nashville Public Defender Dawn Deaner said the trackingraises important questions about how far police can go without violatingsomeone’s right to privacy.
“I would imagine … that most Americans do not realize orexpect their decision to get a cellphone is also an agreement to allowgovernment agencies to track their every movement surreptitiously whenever andwherever they want,” Deaner said.
Technologically savvy criminalsIn 2001, the Federal Communications Commission mandated that95 percent of all new cellphones produced by 2005 have built in GPScapabilities. The purpose was to allow 911 dispatchers to quickly locate peoplewho call in emergencies using cellphones.
As technology improved, law enforcement saw it as an idealtool to perform surveillance without having to be physically there. Or tofollow a suspect’s tracks before and after a crime has occurred. Moderncellphones constantly broadcast a user’s location as long as they are poweredon — even when not making a call.
U.S. Attorney Jerry Martin said that criminals have becomemore technologically savvy in their attempts to evade authorities, requiringinvestigators to follow suit.
“People who engage in illegal activity are often extremelysophisticated, and we will do everything within our power, and within thebounds of the Constitution, to catch them and hold them accountable,” he said.
Nashville Assistant District Attorney Rob McGuire recalled amurder case in which a suspect claimed he was elsewhere when the slayingoccurred.
“His phone was basically pinging off towers from his house,down Gallatin Roadto around where the felony murder happened,” McGuire said. “Our approach is, wedon’t want to go fishing into people’s phone records without a reason.”
Loss of privacyThe appeals case involves Melvin Skinner, a Knoxville drug suspect who was convicted, inpart, because authorities were able to track his movements through hiscellphone. They tracked him to a rest stop near Abilene, Texas,where they found Skinner and a motor home carrying more than 1,100 pounds ofmarijuana.
Skinner appealed his conviction, saying that police didn’thave a search warrant and violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The courtdisagreed.
Slobogin said the debate comes down to whether police had tophysically “trespass,” such as in the search of someone’s house, to obtain thatinformation. Because police were essentially picking cellular signals out ofthe air, the court ruled, they didn’t need a warrant.
Deaner, who hadn’t had a chance to fully read the Skinnercase, said that even with a search warrant such cellular snooping should worrycitizens.
“I think the larger issue really is whether Americansunderstand, and are ready to acknowledge or agree, that when they get acellphone, they give up a great deal of their privacy,” she said. “I don’tthink people have much of a choice in whether they are tracked by the GPS ontheir phones.”
Slobogin said that privacy advocates may have a key ally inthe U.S. Supreme Court. He said Justice Sonia Sotomayor in particular hashinted that U.S.citizens may need better privacy protections in this digital age.
“Advances in technology have given government more powerthan they’ve ever had in finding out personal information,” he said. “I thinkthe court is slowly but surely moving in the direction of more privacyprotection.”
Source: The Tennessean