Media Advisory: Thursday, April 13, 2017
CONTACT: ACLU Media, 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org; media@acludc.org
DC’s Highest Court to Hear Challenge to Police’s Warrantless Use of ‘Stingray’ Cell Phone Tracker
Hearing Will Be Livestreamed
WHAT:
The highest local appeals court in Washington, D.C. — the District’s equivalent of a state supreme court — will hear oral argument in a challenge to police use of a cell phone tracking device to locate a suspect without first obtaining a warrant. The case is Prince Jones v. United States.
The device, known as a “cell site simulator” or a “Stingray,” tracks phones by mimicking cell towers, forcing phones in the area into broadcasting their identifying information.
In 2013, the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department used a Stingray to track a suspect’s cell phone while investigating two sexual assaults and robberies, but officers did not obtain a warrant or any other court order before 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’s 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 “inevitable discovery” doctrine because the police would have located the suspect by tracking one of his victims' phones, which he had stolen and was also in his car.
On appeal, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of the District of Columbia, 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’s 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’s cell phone but bystanders’ 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’s Court of Special Appeals ruled last year that a warrant is required.
WHO:
D.C. Public Defender Service attorney Stefanie Schneider, ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler, and U.S. Justice Department of attorneys will appear before a three-judge panel.
WHEN:
Tuesday, April 18, 10 a.m.
WHERE:
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
430 E St. NW, Washington, D.C.
LIVESTREAM:
http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/appellate/oralargsaudio.jsf
The ACLU-EFF amicus brief is here:
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/prince-jones-v-united-states-amicus-...
More case documents are here:
https://www.aclu.org/cases/us-v-prince-jones-challenge-polices-warrantle...