Using cell phones to find people

Cell phone technology allows carriers to imprecisely triangulate the locations of its users assuming they have their cell phones with them. Police have come to appreciate this new tool in finding missing persons.

While this information certainly helps find missing people, the police do not need a warrant to access it and that’s a little troubling:

In missing persons cases…cell phone providers require that officers assert a customer may be in immediate danger — “exigent circumstances” in the industry’s parlance — before releasing the information, said Joyce Masamitsu, associate director for state public policy for Verizon Wireless. Verizon alone handled about 26,000 such requests last year.

Masamitsu said Verizon, like other cellular providers, requires detailed follow-up reports from investigators. But she said the company doesn’t conduct any independent review of the requests before releasing location information.

“All the officer needs to do is confirm to us that an exigent circumstance exists,” she said.

Making it a habit to trust authority is never a good thing. I’m not suggesting that police are taking advantage of the carriers right now, but it seems like that wouldn’t necessarily be a difficult thing to considering the malleable definition of “exigent circumstance.” That’s why states should require a court order for police to obtain this information. At the very least, it would require that wording to be more precise.

The Feds, meanwhile, do require warrants. However, their use of this technology is much more mischievous:

Federal officials are routinely asking courts to order cellphone companies to furnish real-time tracking data so they can pinpoint the whereabouts of drug traffickers, fugitives and other criminal suspects, according to judges and industry lawyers.

In some cases, judges have granted the requests without requiring the government to demonstrate that there is probable cause to believe that a crime is taking place or that the inquiry will yield evidence of a crime…

These judges are issuing orders based on the lower standard, requiring a showing of “specific and articulable facts” showing reasonable grounds to believe the data will be “relevant and material” to a criminal investigation.

That legal chicanery needs to stop. I’m all for tracking bad guys, but we have to play by the rules to do it. Congress needs to make it clear that ‘reasonable grounds’ is not the same as probable cause — the standard that’s used to issue warrants, make police stops, etc. It’s actually the crucial pillar that ensures freedom from police interference in your everyday life, unless, of course, you’re breaking the law or look like you are. We shouldn’t allow it to erode.