[9/8/16] On Tuesday, a US federal judge in New York delivered a crucial rebuke to the government’s warrantless use of stingrays.
In a 14-page opinion, the judge ruled that the government could not use its stingray to locate a drug suspect, asleep in his apartment. As a result of the ruling, the judge suppressed the evidence found in the man’s bedroom—a kilogram of cocaine—likely effectively ending the case.
In March 2016, a state appeals court in Maryland reached a similar finding, but this is believed to be the first federal ruling of its kind.
“This is the first federal ruling I know of in which a judge squarely ruled that the Fourth Amendment requires police to get a warrant to use a stingray and suppressed evidence derived from warrantless use of the technology,” Nathan Wessler, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, told Ars.
As Ars has long reported, cell-site simulators—known colloquially as stingrays—can be used to determine a mobile phone’s location by spoofing a cell tower. In some cases, stingrays can intercept calls and text messages. Once deployed, the devices intercept data from a target phonealong with information from other phones within the vicinity. At times, police have falsely claimedthe use of a confidential informant when they have actually deployed these particularly sweeping and intrusive surveillance tools.
In recent years, stingray use has come under increasing scrutiny. Several states, includingCalifornia, Washington, Virginia, Minnesota, and Utah, now mandate that a warrant be issued for use of the devices. Last year, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice also imposed new policies that require a warrant for stingray use in most cases.
Here, the stingray was used by the Drug Enforcement Agency, which is bound by rules under the DOJ—however, the device was deployed just days before the DOJ announced its new rules.
“Absent a search warrant, the Government may not turn a citizen’s cell phone into a tracking device,” US District Judge William Pauley wrote.
The case, known as United States v. Raymond Lambis, involves a man who was the target of a drug investigation.
According to court documents, since January 2015 federal authorities had been investigating an operation to move “large quantities” of narcotics from South America. As part of that investigation, investigators obtained a wiretap order to monitor Blackberry PIN messages between two suspected drug traffickers.
During one of those exchanges, they came across a message referencing someone named “Patilla,” which listed a 646 area code phone number. Those messages suggested that Patilla would be able to furnish hydrochloric acid, which can be used to purify heroin.
So, DEA Special Agent Kathryn Glover sought and obtained a warrant seeking location information and cell site data for the 646 phone—not for the search of the suspect’s apartment.
In fact, in the warrant application, Agent Glover wrote: “the Prospective Location Information will be obtained by requiring the Service Provider to provide the information.”
“So they went to the effort to get a warrant, but then didn’t tell the judge they intended to use that warrant to use a stingray,” Christopher Soghoian, an ACLU technologist, told Ars.
He underscored that while the DOJ and other law enforcement agencies have policies that require the use of a warrant, that’s not the…CONTINUE READING