Supreme Court dismisses appeal based on warrantless phone search
It's hard to forget a name like Quartavious Davis, but let us remind you anyway: he was sentenced to 162 years in prison with no possibility of parole for a number of armed robberies in Miami. His target locations included big name outlets, such as Walgreens and Wendy's. Now, the Supreme Court's nine justices have rejected the appeal he filed -- based on the fact that feds obtained his phone data without a warrant -- to overturn his conviction. As you may have guessed, authorities used his phone data as evidence in court, showing that his device connected to cell towers near the target locations when they were robbed to make and take calls.
His lawyers argue that feds needed a "probable cause"/a warrant to seize that information, but they failed to convince the Court of Appeals in May that the lack of one violated his right under the Fourth Amendment. Reuters noted that under the federal Stored Communications Act, feds don't need probable cause to request for a customer's records. They only need to show that there are "reasonable grounds" for the request and it's relevant to the investigation. Wondering whether feds actually need a warrant to acquire your cell site data or not? According to Ars Technica, different courts rule as they please. It's definitely confusing, and the Supreme Court declining to hear Davis' case makes the situation even more so.
[Image credit: Getty/AndreyPopov]
