Call us now:
What You May Not Know About Your Cell Phone Being Tracked
Almost everyone you know uses and carries a cell phone. And what many people know, and even a Court will say every once in a while, is that we all know the police use cell phone data to track people. But what people don’t know is that the police and prosecution will make efforts to hide the use of cell phone tracking technology when they do so without a warrant, and they do it here in Florida. How exactly they do it is a little complicated and it has to do with criminal procedure and subpoenaing witnesses for testimony. Read on to learn about how the Defense can deal with your cell phone being tracked.
What Defense Can Do if Your Cell Phone is Being Tracked Illegally
When a criminal defendant believes evidence in their case is illegally obtained, they can file a motion to suppress evidence, and try to convince the judge that the police and prosecution acted in violation of the Constitution. During hearings that take place on these matters, the parties (State or Defense) can call witnesses and force them to testify about the case with subpoenas. You would think this is pretty straightforward because you could just get a police officer to answer questions under oath in front of the judge and you could prove the illegality. Was my cell phone being tracked should not be hard question to ask or get answered.
Prosecution & Government Agents Hide That They Illegally Tracked Your Cell Phone
A problem arises when you figure out that the person committing the wrongdoing will hide their wrongdoing with the help of the prosecution and other government agents, to create a roadblock from getting any answers. By delaying the answering of questions and creating impediments to lawfully issued subpoenas, police and prosecutor misconduct can be covered up and prevent the Courts from ever bearing witness to Constitutional violations. This appears to be exactly what happened in the case of Walker v State out of the 4th District Court of Appeal in Florida. The Walker Court was actually interested in answering was a cell phone being tracked.
In that case the Court addressed the legality of using real-time cell phone location tracking data (CSLI) for arrest without a warrant, which the appellant argued violated the Fourth Amendment. The arresting officer, who was part of both the Broward County Sheriff’s office and the U.S. Marshals Service Fugitive Task Force, refused to testify about the use of CSLI or whether a warrant was obtained, citing federal regulations that restricted his ability to disclose information without approval from his agency (which of course was not granting it). The lower trial court denied the motion to suppress, stating that there was no evidence showing the seizure was based on an illegal search (even though ironically this was due to the government witness refusing to give that same evidence). So basically the government wouldn’t admit that a cell phone being tracked was involved at all.
On appeal, the appellant contended the court erred by not allowing questioning of the officer regarding CSLI use. However, the appeal court upheld that the trial court could not compel the officer to testify under the federal regulations that apply to Department of Justice employees; however the Court in a concurrence went on to address this offensive practice by the government.
The Court expressed concern that the refusal to disclose whether CSLI was used could indicate an effort to conceal an illegal search. The Court pointed out that the federal agency wasn’t complying with its own regulations which should have allowed the disclosure (28 C.F.R. § 16.24(c)). The Court went on to state what we all generally assume:”I find it hard to believe the public is unaware that police use cell tracking data to locate persons. What one gleans from this record is an effort to hide the fact that the deputy acted without a warrant, thus making the search for appellant illegal”.
That being said, the most unusual thing about his opinion and what can be learned from the issues and rulings in the Walker case is found in what can only be seen as guidance by the Court in preventing this kind of shell game from happening again. The Court explained that the superiors who would not allow the deputy to testify (his so-called superiors) are not beyond the reach of subpoenas.
From Walker: although the officer may not be held in contempt for following the directions of his superiors, that does not preclude the superior from being held in civil contempt. See Touhy, 340 U.S. at 472 (Frankfurter, J., concurring) (“[T]he Attorney General [cannot] forbid every subordinate who is capable of being served by process from producing relevant documents and later contest a requirement upon him to produce on the ground that procedurally he cannot be reached . . . . [T]he Attorney General can be reached by legal process.”);
Fight Against Your Cell Phone Being Tracked
Hopefully with the help of criminal defense attorneys around the State we can end the practice of police and prosecutors systematically preventing the disclosure of the truth from local judges and citizens. A cell phone being tracked is just one type of illegal warrantless action that can happen in a criminal case. There are many other ways, some of which you can learn about here.
If you think evidence was wrongfully obtained in your case, or if your cell phone was tracked illegally by law enforcement, get expert legal help now. Call Landsman Law today.