On 22 June 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued their ruling in the Carpenter case.The case could have some application for military practitioners. The use of digital forensic evidence is becoming increasingly common. Law enforcement often seeks to examine cell phone data, computer hard drives, phone company records, and now GPS data. We’ve certainly seen military cases in the past where the Army sought to obtain geolocation data from a phone company.Carpenter asked the question whether the Government conducts a search under the Fourth Amendment when it accesses historical cell phone records that provide a comprehensive chronicle of the user’s past movements.Spoiler alert. The short answer for the Supreme Court was yes. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in your location information. In Carpenter, ironically, the defendant and his accomplices robbed some Radio Shack stores and T-Mobile stores in Detroit. A magistrate ordered Sprint to provide Cell-Site Location Information (CSLI). Long story short, Carpenter’s buddies all rolled on him and claimed he was the ring-leader. The Government obtained the CSLI without a warrant.
Categories
Related Posts
-
US V. CPL Lindsey Scott
Feb 01In 1983, a woman was attacked near the Quantico Marine Base in Virginia. The victim’s description of her assailant prompted the military officers to convict and court-martial Corporal Lindsey Scott, the only black MP in the Quantico Criminal Investigation Division, despite his pleas of innocence. He was initially convicted and sentenced to 30 years in...
-
Military Speedy Trial Rights
Jan 28Under the US Constitution, an accused enjoys the right to a speedy trial. US v. Danylo, 73 M.J. 183 (C.A.A.F. 2013). A service members 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial triggers upon the preferral of charges or pretrial restraint. That right is also codified in Article 10, UCMJ. Military courts look at 4 issues...
-
Release from Pretrial Confinement
Jan 28Under R.C.M. 906 (b)(8), the defense may move the court for relief from pretrial confinement in violation of R.C.M. 305.The defense, as the moving party, has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the 7-day reviewing officer’s decision was an abuse of discretion; or (2) information not presented to the...