021710_CELL PHONE DRIVING BAN 2-2 LON

The majority of parents surveyed in a new U-M study admitted to at least one distracted driving behavior--like texting--while their child was in the car.

(File photo | The Ann Arbor News)

A Fourth Amendment case out of the Detroit area, related to whether police must obtain warrants before acquiring cell phone location data from providers, is headed to the Supreme Court.

The case involves convicted serial robber Timothy I. Carpenter, 32, who is serving a 100-year-plus sentence after being convicted of 11 crimes related to robberies that occurred between 2010 and 2015.

During his trial, Carpenter's attorneys argued that cell phone location data shouldn't have been allowed at trial because they were obtained from cell phone providers without a warrant.

The appeal was denied by the Sixth Circuit Court and the Supreme Court announced it would hear the case on Monday, June 5.

Police currently need warrants to review data, such as emails, text messages, photos and videos, that is contained on the phone of someone placed under arrest.

Chief Justice John Roberts said in an opinion three years ago phones are "based on technology nearly inconceivable just a few decades ago" and "are now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy,'" According to the Supreme Court blog. Justices said information on a phone isn't excluded from search, but "a warrant is generally required before such a search."

Carpenter's attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union argue cell phone location data reveals a lot about a person.

"A person who knows all of another's travels can deduce whether he is a weekly church goer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym, an unfaithful husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment, an associate of particular individuals or political groups -- and not just one such fact about a person, but all such facts," the appeal says.

the FBI allegedly obtained more than four months of location data for Carpenter's phone, which linked him to multiple robberies. Carpenter's attorneys reference another precedent, U.S. v. Jones, in which it was determined police use of a GPS tracking device placed on suspects car constituted a "search" and there fore required a search warrant.

"If tracking a vehicle for 28 days in Jones was a search, then surely tracking a cell phone for four times as long is likewise a search, particularly because people keep their phones with them as they enter private spaces traditionally protected by the Fourth Amendment," the appeal says.

Carpenter has previous 2010 convictions for drug possession and dealing, will be 148 when his minimum sentence is served.

Read the full appeal:

USA v. Timothy Carpenter (Amicus Brief) by The Brennan Center for Justice on Scribd