吃瓜大本营

The highest local appeals court in Washington, D.C. 鈥� the district鈥檚 equivalent of a state supreme court 鈥� is considering a challenge to police use of a cell phone tracking device to locate a suspect without first obtaining a warrant.

The device, known as a 鈥渃ell site simulator鈥� or a 鈥淪tingray,鈥� tracks phones by mimicking cell towers, forcing phones in the area into broadcasting their identifying information.

In 2013, the Metropolitan Police Department used a Stingray to track a suspect鈥檚 cell phone while investigating several sexual assaults and robberies, but officers did not obtain a warrant or any other court order before to using the device. Police were able to precisely locate the suspect, Prince Jones, sitting in his parked car on a busy street.

The defense challenged the Stingray鈥檚 use before trial, and the lower court found that even if the police actions violated the Fourth Amendment, the evidence found in the car could still be used under the 鈥渋nevitable discovery鈥� doctrine.

On appeal, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that police should be required to get a warrant before using a Stingray because the device can locate people鈥檚 cell phones with great precision, including inside of homes and other private spaces protected by the Fourth Amendment. Further, Stingrays can sweep in information about not just a suspect鈥檚 cell phone but bystanders鈥� phones as well.

So far, only one appellate court decision in the country has directly addressed the Fourth Amendment limits on police use of Stingrays. In that case, Maryland鈥檚 Court of Special Appeals last year that a warrant is required.