Focusing public attention on emerging privacy and civil liberties issues

State of New Jersey v Earls

State v. Earls

Summary

Defendant Thomas Earls was arrested while in possession of stolen property by police who used location information which they received from his cell phone provider without obtaining a warrant. Earls moved to suppress the evidence arising out of his arrest, and his case ultimately went to Supreme Court of New Jersey.

EPIC filed a supplemental "friend of the court" brief to the Court, arguing that individuals have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the location data on their cell phones. The Court made note of the recent GPS tracking case, United States v. Jones, but ultimately based its decision on the New Jersey Constitution, and held that "that police must obtain a warrant based on a showing of probable cause, or qualify for an exception to the warrant requirement, to obtain tracking information through the use of a cell phone."

Following re-argumentation in the case, in July 2013 the N.J. Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and found, under the State Constitution’s privacy protections, "that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location of their cell phones." They noted that EPIC had provided “helpful details about the current state of cell-phone technology,” which apparently helped it understand the issue in light of GPS tracking jurisprudence, rather than only analogizing to how courts apply the third-party doctrine to the placing of traditional phone calls. It remanded to the Appellate Division questions of whether an emergency or other exemption might apply. In a per curiam decision, the Appellate Division held that these exceptions did not apply and the resulting search was constitutionally impermissable.

Top News

  • Massachusetts Court Upholds Privacy Protection for Location Records: In Commonwealth v. Augustine, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in cell phone location records held by a company. Article 14 of the Massachusetts Constitution, similar to the Fourth Amendment, provides that individuals should be free from "unreasonable searches, and seizures." The court held that obtaining two weeks of phone location records was a search, requiring a warrant. EPIC filed "friend of the court" briefs in Commonwealth v. Connolly, a similar case in Massachusetts concerning warrantless GPS tracking, and State v. Earls, a case in which the New Jersey Supreme Court held that location data is protected under the state constitution. EPIC also filed a brief in In re U.S. Application for Historical Cell Site Data, where an appeals court held that users have no reasonable expectation of privacy in location records under the Fourth Amendment. The Massachusetts Supreme Court considered all three cases. For more information, see EPIC: Location Privacy. (Feb. 20, 2014)
  • New Jersey Court Issues Landmark Location Privacy Decision: Today the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cell phone location data under the NJ state constitution. In State v. Earls, the New Jersey high court found that "cell-phone location information, which users must provide to receive service, can reveal a great deal of personal information about an individual." This decision is the first to establish a Constitutional right in location data since the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Jones, a GPS tracking case in which several Justices expressed concern about the collection of location data. EPIC participated as amicus curiae in Earls. The New Jersey Supreme Court noted that "EPIC offered helpful details about the current state of cell-phone technology." For more information, see EPIC: State v. Earls and EPIC: Locational Privacy. (Jul. 18, 2013)
  • Court Permits Police Use of Phony Cell Phone Tower: A federal court in Arizona has denied a motion to suppress evidence gathered by "StingRay" surveillance technology. The court in United States v. Rigmaiden held that investigators did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court also held that the government's use of a cell site simulator or StingRay device was supported by a "mobile tracking device" warrant. EPIC recently argued that users have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location of their mobile devices, and has also received hundreds of pages of documents related to the FBI's use of StingRay technology. For more information, see EPIC v. FBI: StingRay and EPIC: State v. Earls. (May. 10, 2013)
  • EPIC Testifies in Austin on Texas Location Privacy Bill: EPIC's Appellate Advocacy Counsel Alan Butler testified before the Texas State Assembly on a privacy bill for telephone location data. The House bill, would establish a warrant requirement for location data and a comprehensive reporting requirement, similar to the federal wiretap reports. Mr. Butler discussed the need for clear rules governing location surveillance that satisfy Fourth Amendment standards, as well as the importance of public reporting and accountability. He also testified at a Senate Committee hearing on the proposal. EPIC recently submitted amicus briefs in State v. Earls and In re U.S. (5th Cir.) regarding location privacy. For more information, see EPIC: Locational Privacy. (Mar. 28, 2013)
  • EPIC Testifies Before Maryland Legislature on Location Privacy: EPIC Appellate Advocacy Counsel Alan Butler testified before the Maryland House Judiciary Committee on H.B. 887, a location privacy bill that will establish a search warrant requirement for the collection of private location information. Mr. Butler discussed the current state of location tracking and privacy under the state and federal constitutions. The Maryland bill will require a warrant for location tracking and an annual report on electronic surveillance reports, similar to the federal wiretap reports. EPIC recently submitted amicus briefs in State v. Earls and In re US regarding location privacy. For more information, see EPIC: Locational Privacy and EPIC: State v. Earls. (Feb. 28, 2013)
  • EPIC to Argue for Location Privacy in NJ Supreme Court: The New Jersey Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday in State v. Earls, an important case regarding the privacy of cell phone location information. At issue is whether real-time location data should be disclosed by a cell phone provider without a warrant or a court order. EPIC Appellate Advocacy Counsel Alan Butler will present oral argument along with counsel for the Defendant and amici ACLU-NJ. In response to the Court's request for supplemental briefing, EPIC's brief outlined the current state of location tracking technology and argued that cell phone users have a reasonable expectation of privacy under both the Federal and State constitutions. For more information, see EPIC: State of NJ v. Earls and EPIC: In re Historical CSLI. (Jan. 28, 2013)
  • New Jersey Supreme Court Considers Cellphone Tracking Case: In State v. Earls, the New Jersey Supreme Court is today hearing arguments on whether the police may use cellphone tracking techniques without court approval. Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court ruled that the police must obtain a court order if they attach a GPS tracking device to a vehicle. EPIC filed a "friend of the court" brief in Earls, urging the New Jersey court to uphold Fourth Amendment protections. The cell phone tracking techniques at issue in the New Jersey case, EPIC argued, "is more invasive than the GPS tracking in Jones." Princeton attorney Grayson Barber is arguing for EPIC as amicus before the New Jersey court. (Oct. 22, 2012)
  • Law Enforcement Requests to Wireless Carriers Topped 1.3 Million in 2011: In response to recent letters from Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA), nine mobile wireless carriers have provided detailed reports of law enforcement requests for user cell phone records. These requests come from agencies - across all levels of government - seeking text messages, caller locations, and other information in the course of investigations. The reports show that companies turn over thousands of records a day in response to subpoenas, court orders, police emergencies, and other requests. The volume of requests has increased as much as 16 percent for some companies over the last five years, and some carriers have rejected as many as 15 percent of all requests that they found legally questionable or unjustified. EPIC recently filed amicus briefs in the Fifth Circuit and New Jersey Supreme Court arguing that disclosure of historical and real-time cell phone location information violates a reasonable expectation of privacy and thus requires a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. For more information, see EPIC: In re Historic Cell-Site Location Information, EPIC: State v. Earls. (Jul. 9, 2012)
  • EPIC Urges Court to Uphold Location Privacy in Cell Phone Tracking Case: EPIC filed a "Friend of the Court" brief in the Fifth Circuit urging the court to uphold Fourth Amendment protections for cell phone users. In the case, In re US for Historical Cell-Site Data, the lower court held that the disclosure of historical cell phone location records without a warrant would violate the Fourth Amendment. EPIC argued that this opinion should be upheld in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Jones, because cell phone location records are collected without the knowledge or consent of users. The records in this case, EPIC argued, create a "comprehensive map of an individual’s movements, activities, and relationships, . . . precisely the type of information that individuals reasonably and justifiably believe will remain private." For more information, see In re Historical Cell-Site Location Information, EPIC: State v. Earls, and EPIC: US v. Jones. (Mar. 19, 2012)
  • EPIC Urges Court to Uphold Location Privacy in Cell Phone Tracking Case: EPIC filed a "friend of the court" brief in the New Jersey Supreme Court urging the court to uphold Fourth Amendment protections for cell phone users. In State of New Jersey v. Thomas W. Earls, the lower court held that an individual has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the location of their cell phone. EPIC argued that the lower court opinion should be overturned in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Jones. The cell phone tracking techniques in this case, EPIC argued, "is more invasive than the GPS tracking in Jones." For more information, see EPIC: State v. Earls, and EPIC: US v. Jones. (Feb. 29, 2012)

Questions Presented

Was defendant's arrest valid where law enforcement officers used information from defendant's cell phone provider about the general location of the cell phone; and did the plain view exception to the warrant requirement apply in these circumstances?

Background

The issue presented in Earls is whether the government can constitutionally obtain and use locational information from a defendant's cell phone provider to track a suspect's location without a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. The government engages in this investigatory technique frequently, although its constitutionality is still in question in many courts.

Thomas Earls, the defendant in State v. Earls, was a suspect in a string of residential burglaries. In order to locate Earls, police contacted his cell phone carrier. Because every seven seconds, a cell phone scans for the strongest signal and then identifies itself with that cell phone tower, the police could use these tower logs to track Earls' approximate location. The cell phone carrier notified the police three separate times of Earls' location; on the third the police found Earls' car in a motel parking lot within the targeted area. The police found Earls inside his hotel room along with a flat screen television and other stolen property.

Earls filed a motion to suppress this evidence. The court denied this motion after a three-day evidentiary hearing. Earls then entered a plea bargain, agreeing to seven years of imprisonment. After this, he filed a motion to reopen his appeal challenging the court's denial of his motion to suppress.

The N.J. appellate court denied this motion and ruled that the locational tracking was constitutional because the police monitoring took place on public highways, based in large part on United States v. Knotts and United States v. Karo. However, on January 23, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Jones. In this decision, a majority of the Court stated that some types of locational tracking, even when done entirely on public highways, can infringe upon a reasonable expectation of privacy. Thus, the ruling in Earls must be re-evaluated.

EPIC's Interest in State v. Earls

EPIC has an interest in promoting privacy in digital spaces by upholding robust Fourth Amendment protections. Location privacy is becoming an important issue in Fourth Amendment law as more devices store location data that can later be recovered, intercepted, or otherwise obtained by law enforcement or private parties. EPIC recently filed a "Friend of the Court" brief in US v. Jones, a Supreme Court case involving a Fourth Amendment challenge to the government's unwarranted use of GPS tracking technology during a criminal investigation.

The New Jersey Supreme Court held oral arguments in Earls on October 21, 2012. Then on November 21, 2012, the Court requested additional briefing on six specific questions related to the retroactive application of the warrant requirement, the current state of technology of related to cell phone location tracking, and the reasonable expectation of privacy in cell phone location under federal and state constitutions.

Legal Documents

New Jersey Supreme Court

New Jersey Appellate Court

Resources

Related Cases: Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

  • United States v. Katzin, 732 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2013).
  • In United States v. Katzin, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that police must obtain a warrant before attaching a GPS device to a vehicle. In light of United States v. Jones, in which the Supreme Court held that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment, the Third Circuit held that such a search did not fit any exception to the warrant requirement. The Court rejected the government's arguments that a "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" justified the warrantless search. Katzin, 732, F.3d at 198-203. Unlike a pat-down or automobile search, which are limited to a discreet moment in time and to finding evidence already in existence, the Court found that a GPS search was "vastly broader." Id. at 200-01. The court quoted Sotomayor's concurrence in Jones to establish that GPS tracking can generate a detailed record of people's associations. The Court further distinguished a GPS search as creating "a continuous police presence for the purpose of discovering evidence that may come into existence . . . at some point in the future." Id. at 203. The Third Circuit is currently hearing an en banc review of the Katzin decision and heard oral argument in the case on May 28, 2014.

  • United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012).
  • In United States v. Jones, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment when it attached a GPS device to a suspect’s car and tracked his movements for 28 days. In the five-Justice majority opinion, Justice Scalia argued that because the police physically invaded the suspect’s car to attach the device, the government had violated the suspect’s property-based Fourth Amendment rights and the Court need not determine if the government had violated a reasonable expectation of privacy. Id. at 953. Justice Alito, joined by three Justices, authored a concurrence arguing that the majority had decided the case "based on 18th-century tort law," which obscured the true issue in the case of whether the government’s electronic GPS surveillance violated a citizen’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Id. at 957-58. Alito concluded that "the use of longer term GPS monitoring in investigations of most offenses impinges on expectations of privacy," and in this case the 28 day surveillance had violated the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 964. Justice Sotomayor joined the majority opinion's narrow ruling, but in a separate concurring opinion supported much of the substance of Justice Alito's concurrence. Id. at 954-955. Jones was decided on narrow grounds, but with five Justices acknowledging a reasonable expectation of privacy in the collection and aggregation location data which could be observed by the public, the case signals a significant development in Fourth Amendment law.

  • United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984).
  • In United States v. Jacobson, the Supreme Court ruled that where a private party searches a package and reveals that information to the government, the government’s subsequent warrantless search is reasonable so long as it does not "exceed[] the scope" of the private search. In Jacobson, employees of a private shipping company partially tore a package open and discovered a white powder. Id. at 111. The company repacked the package and called a DEA agent who, without a warrant, searched the package and tested the powder to determine if it was cocaine. Id. The Supreme Court addressed the issues of whether either of these two actions by the agent, opening the package and testing the substance, violated the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 118. As an initial matter, the Court held that a private search of the package cannot violate the Fourth Amendment, as there is no state action. Id. at 113. The Court found that because of search by the private actors, the owner of the package no longer had a reasonable expectation that the government would not search the package. Id. at 119. Next, the Court ruled that testing the substance to determine if it was cocaine did not violate the Fourth Amendment, as there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in whether a substance one possesses is or is not cocaine. Id. at 123. The Court analogized the test to using drug-sniffing dogs to smell airport luggage for drugs, which does not require a warrant. Id. at 124. Because "the federal agents did not infringe any constitutionally protected privacy interest that had not already been frustrated as the result of private conduct," the warrantless search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

  • United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984).
  • In United States v. Karo, the Supreme Court held that: (1) the installation of a "beeper" tracking device into a container that is then transferred to an individual does not interfere with his or her privacy or possessory interests and thus does not constitute a search or seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes; and (2) police must obtain a warrant before using a "beeper" tracking device to obtain location information from inside a private residence. The Court reaffirmed its holding in Knotts that there is no legitimate expectation of privacy in one's movements while traveling on public highways. Karo, 468 U.S. at 720-21 (citing United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 281-82 (1983)). In Knotts, the Court held that information obtained from a beeper tracking device that could have been observed with the naked eye from a public place did not present a Fourth Amendment interest. In Karo, the Court held that a warrant was required to use the same device to obtain information that could not be seen with the naked eye from outside a private residence. Karo, 468 U.S. at 714-15. However, the Court decided that the warrant to search the suspect’s home, obtained using information from the unconstitutional search, was nonetheless valid because "the officers could have secured the warrant without relying on the beeper to locate [the evidence] in the house sought to be searched." Id. at 719.

  • United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983).
  • In United States v. Knotts, the Supreme Court held that monitoring the signal of a beeper, placed inside of a container, to track the container's location as it traveled in a defendant's vehicle to his home, was not a "search" or “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment. Knotts, 460 U.S. at 276. The Court reversed the Eight Circuit’s decision to suppress evidence obtained from tracking the beeper. It held that "a person travelling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another." Id. at 281-82. Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, wrote that when the defendant "traveled over the public streets he voluntarily conveyed to anyone who wanted to look the fact that he was traveling over particular roads in a particular direction . . . and the fact of his final destination." Id. The Court held that because all of the information collected from the beeper was information that police could have observed from the public places along the defendant's route, the fact that they used technology to gather this information did not change the fact that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements. Id. at 282.

Related Cases: Cell Site Location Information

  • In re US for Historic CSLI, No. 11-mc-00223 (previously 10-mc-00891, 00990, 00998) (S.D. Tex. Nov. 11, 2011), rejection of the government's Section 2703(d) application on appeal to the Fifth Circuit, Case No. 11-220884.
  • In re US for an Order Authorizing Release of Historical Cell-Site Info., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93494 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2011).
  • In re US Order Authorizing Release of Historical Cell-Site Info., 736 F. Supp. 2d 578 (E.D.N.Y. 2010).
  • In re US for an Order: Authorizing the Installation & Use of a Pen Register & Trap & Trace Device, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45643 (N.D. Ind. July 5, 2006).
  • In re Application of US for an Order Authorizing Installation and Use of a Pen Register, 402 F. Supp. 2d 597 (D. Md. 2005).
  • In re Order Authorizing the Release of Prospective Cell Site Info., 407 F. Supp. 2d 134 (D.D.C. 2006).
  • In re United States, 411 F. Supp. 2d 678 (W.D. La. 2006).
  • In re US for an Order Authorizing Use of Two Pen Register & Trap & Trace Devices, 632 F. Supp. 2d 202 (E.D.N.Y. 2008).
  • In re US for an Order Authorizing Use of a Pen Register, 396 F. Supp. 2d 294 (E.D.N.Y. 2005).
  • People v. Hall, 14 Misc. 3d 245 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006), aff'd People v. Hall, 86 A.D.3d 450 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2011).

Related Cases: Third Party Doctrine

  • Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).
  • United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976).

News Reports

Print Media and Blogs

Law Review Articles and Books