ACLU takes aim at cell phone tracking devices

The use of cellphone tracking devices by law enforcement agencies has prompted the American Civil Liberties Union to sue law enforcement agencies the organization claims is concealing their possession and use from the public.

The ACLU has identified 48 agencies in 20 states and the District of Columbia that own StingRay devices, but the organization says because many law enforcement agencies are secretive about the use of StingRay, it is unknown how many departments utilize this technology.

The ACLU describes the StingRay device as a “highly intrusive form of surveillance,” which mimics a cellphone tower, forcing all cellphones within its radius to send it communication and location information.

Jessica Price, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California, where several lawsuits have been filed, said the device “interacts with your cellphone without your permission, forcing the phone to give away data about you, your location, and your calls and text messages regardless of whether the phone is in your car, in your pocket or in your bedroom.”

“Unlike when police departments get court orders to use wiretaps or request cellphone providers to share a specific suspect’s cellphone records, StingRays by their nature involve indiscriminate data collection from hundreds of people in the vicinity. Given the range of a StingRay—a mile or more—police can monitor entire city blocks. Even if you are not the target of a police investigation, your phone can be affected—and you can be tracked,” Price said.

Police can get a court order to collect the same data through a tower dump, though StingRay devices collect the information from cellphones in real time without going through any wireless service providers. Police maintain both tactics do not capture the content of calls or other communication.

Ouachita Parish Sheriff’s Office spokesman Glenn Springfield said the Sheriff’s Office does not possess any cellphone tracking devices nor does the department plan to acquire them. Caldwell Parish Sheriff’s, Lincoln Parish Sheriff’s and Morehouse Parish Sheriff’s offices also do not possess a cellphone tracking device.

Other northeastern law enforcement agencies did not respond to The News-Star on Tuesday.

The device can cost up to $400,000, but agencies can use federal grants aimed at protecting cities from terror attacks.

Monroe attorney Bob Noel says a number of legal issues arise when law enforcement use these devices to collect information and evidence without a warrant.

Noel is not aware of any departments in northeastern Louisiana that have these devices.

“Nobody has seen it or admitted to it in this part of Louisiana,” Noel said.

At issue is law enforcement’s use of these devices without a warrant approved by a judge, an independent neutral third party.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been very skeptical about this kind of surveillance. In 2012, the court unanimously restricted the police’s ability to use a GPS device to track criminal suspects.

That case involved Antoine Jones, a suspected Washington drug dealer whom police apprehended after police secretly attached a GPS device on his vehicle and tracked his movements for a month.

Jones’ conviction was reversed after the Supreme Court agreed Jones’ rights were violated by the police’s actions.

Use of the cellphone tracking devices could lead to similar incidents in courts across the country, with cases thrown out and lawsuits against law enforcement, Noel said.

“That was an unreasonable search and violated the 4th Amendment. This is something of a similar nature as far as technology goes. Evidence obtained without a warrant could be thrown out and if sued, police departments would pay out a lot in judgments,” Noel said.

He said use of this technology without a warrant gives government and law enforcement too much power, and history has proven people with a lot of power sometimes abuse it.

“Can you imagine a sheriff who has an opponent using it against them to win an election or someone who has beef with someone — there’s so many different ways this can be abused, it’s not even funny. That’s why it’s got to be regulated,” Noel said.

The only way it can be regulate is for police to go through the proper channels and obtain a warrant to ensure the 4th Amendment is never violated.

“Tools like this were unimaginable when the 4th Amendment was ratified. We all have to be worried about this, whether you are a conservative or a liberal. Honest citizens could be adversely affected by this,” Noel said.

The StingRay grabs data not just from the target's phone, but from the phones of everyone in the area.

Critics say it needs to be very clear that police agencies have to throw out information on hundreds or potentially thousands of innocent people who are swept up by the surveillance.

Police maintain that cellphone data can help solve crimes, track fugitives or abducted children or even foil a terror attack.

Follow Scott Rogers on Twitter @lscottrogers.