We’re Asking the Ninth Circuit to Hold Reverse Location Warrants Categorically Unconstitutional

The brief was filed in United States v. Spurlock, a case involving a murder investigation in California where police obtained location data from nearly 1,700 phones in a rural area. While a lower court ruled tower dumps are unconstitutional, it refused to suppress evidence based on the 'good faith doctrine.'

General warrants argument

The EFF and ACLU argue that tower dumps are 'reverse location searches' that function as unconstitutional general warrants. 'Searching all people in an area without probable cause to believe they were all involved in the criminal activity under investigation reproduces the evils of general warrants and is not constitutionally permitted,' the brief states.

Privacy protections needed

Even if such warrants are allowed in some cases, the organizations argue that strict limits must be imposed to protect innocent bystanders' privacy. These should include limiting the scope and duration of warrants, providing notice to affected individuals, and requiring deletion of irrelevant data.

Court must decide

Finally, the brief contends that courts cannot continue avoiding constitutional questions about surveillance techniques. 'Too often courts pass the buck in cases involving novel surveillance techniques, leading to situations where police can continue using the technique for years or even decades without a definitive ruling,' the EFF argues.

The Supreme Court's decision in Chatrie v. United States this summer, which established that geofence warrants are searches, strengthens the argument against tower dumps, which are similar but older surveillance methods.