Loading
Fourth Amendment
Improper Surveillance
Digital privacy is constitutional privacy. When police track your location, search your phone, or conduct electronic surveillance without a warrant, they violate the Fourth Amendment promise of security in your "persons, houses, papers, and effects."
Key Takeaways
- Location tracking needs warrant: Carpenter requires warrant for cell site data
- Cell phones are protected: Riley requires warrant for phone searches
- GPS trackers need warrant: Jones requires warrant for vehicle trackers
- 2-year deadline: Oklahoma Section 1983 claims must be filed within 2 years
On This Page
The Carpenter Rule: Digital Privacy Protected
In Carpenter v. United States (2018), the Supreme Court recognized that digital-age surveillance requires digital-age protections:
"When the Government tracks the location of a cell phone it achieves near perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone's user... Whoever the suspect turns out to be, he has effectively been tailed every moment of every day for five years."
— Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ___ (2018)
Location Privacy
Extended location tracking reveals the "privacies of life"—where you worship, who you visit, what doctors you see. This requires Fourth Amendment protection.
Third-Party Doctrine Limited
Just because you "share" location data with phone companies doesn't eliminate your privacy interest. Carpenter significantly limited this doctrine.
GPS Tracking: Jones v. United States
Before Carpenter, Jones v. United States (2012) held that physically attaching a GPS tracker to a vehicle is a "search":
Physical Trespass
Installing a GPS device on your vehicle without consent is a physical intrusion on your property. This alone constitutes a "search" requiring a warrant.
Extended Monitoring
Justice Alito's concurrence (joined by 4 justices) focused on the duration of surveillance—28 days of tracking exceeded what's reasonable without a warrant.
What We Challenge
Warrantless GPS tracker installation. Real-time vehicle tracking without warrant. Extended location monitoring through any technology.
Cell Phone Searches: Riley v. California
Riley v. California (2014) unanimously held that police need a warrant to search cell phones—even incident to arrest:
"Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans the privacies of life."
— Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014)
No Search-Incident-to-Arrest Exception
The traditional rule allowing warrantless searches incident to arrest doesn't apply to cell phones. The data they contain is too comprehensive and revealing.
What's Protected
Text messages, emails, photos, browsing history, location data, app data, social media, contacts, calendar—virtually everything on your phone requires a warrant to search.
Exigency Exception Still Applies
True emergencies (bomb threats, kidnapping with phone tracking) may justify warrantless access. But this is narrow—convenience or evidence destruction concerns don't qualify.
Stingray Devices: Cell Site Simulators
"Stingrays" (also called IMSI catchers or cell site simulators) are particularly invasive surveillance tools:
How They Work
Stingrays mimic cell towers, tricking all phones in an area to connect. They can identify and locate specific phones—and often intercept communications content.
Privacy Concerns
Stingrays capture data from everyone nearby—not just suspects. Use has often been secret, with agencies hiding devices even from courts through non-disclosure agreements.
Legal Status: Several courts have required warrants for Stingray use. In 2015, DOJ announced a warrant requirement for federal agencies. Many state and local agencies continue warrantless use.
Other Surveillance Technologies
Pole Cameras
Long-term video surveillance of homes and businesses. While some courts allow public filming, extended targeted surveillance of homes may require a warrant.
Facial Recognition
AI-powered identification from photos and video. Some jurisdictions have banned police use. Extended surveillance combining facial recognition with location tracking raises serious concerns.
Geofence Warrants
"Reverse location" warrants seeking everyone in an area at a time. These raise serious constitutional concerns—Google announced discontinuing support in 2024.
Social Media Monitoring
Public posts have reduced protection, but accessing private content, using fake profiles, or obtaining data from platforms requires appropriate legal process.
Evidence We Gather
Surveillance Records
- • Warrants/court orders (if any)
- • Surveillance authorizations
- • Data requests to providers
- • GPS/location logs
Technology Used
- • Stingray deployment logs
- • GPS tracker installation
- • Phone extraction reports
- • Pole camera placement
Policy Violations
- • Agency surveillance policies
- • DOJ guidelines violations
- • NDA agreements with tech
- • Prior pattern of abuse
Damages for Surveillance Violations
Compensatory Damages
- Invasion of privacy
- Emotional distress
- Harm from disclosed information
- Reputational damage
Additional Recovery
- Punitive damages (willful violations)
- Injunctive relief (stop surveillance)
- Deletion of obtained data
- Attorney's fees (Section 1988)
Frequently Asked Questions
Generally yes. Carpenter v. United States (2018) held that accessing historical cell site location information requires a warrant. Jones v. United States (2012) required warrants for GPS trackers on vehicles. Warrantless location tracking is presumptively unconstitutional.
No. Riley v. California (2014) held unanimously that police need a warrant to search cell phones—even incident to arrest. The Court recognized that modern phones contain 'the privacies of life.' Warrantless phone searches are unconstitutional.
Stingrays (cell site simulators) trick phones into connecting to them, allowing police to identify and locate phones in an area. They often intercept content. Many jurisdictions require warrants, but use is often secretive and warrantless.
Accessing content (what you said) always requires a warrant. Post-Carpenter, extended access to metadata (who you called, when, for how long) also requires a warrant. Short-term records may have different treatment, but we challenge warrantless access.
Public posts generally have reduced privacy expectations. But accessing private messages, using fake accounts to gain access, or obtaining data directly from platforms typically requires a warrant or legal process.
This is an evolving area. Some cities have banned police facial recognition. Even where legal, using it for extended surveillance or combining it with location tracking may raise Fourth Amendment issues.
Federal agencies (FBI, DEA, CBP) must still comply with the Fourth Amendment. Bivens claims can be brought against federal officers for constitutional violations, though these have limitations. We analyze federal surveillance for constitutional compliance.
Carpenter significantly limited the third-party doctrine for digital information. Just because you share data with phone companies doesn't mean you lose all privacy interest. We argue that digital-age surveillance requires digital-age protections.
Navigable airspace is generally not protected, but low-altitude surveillance (especially with advanced technology), extended surveillance, and surveillance of curtilage may require warrants. This is a developing area of law.
Jones v. United States (2012) held that physically attaching a GPS tracker to your vehicle is a 'search' requiring a warrant. Warrantless GPS tracking violates the Fourth Amendment.
Compensatory damages for invasion of privacy, emotional distress, and any harm from information obtained. Punitive damages for willful violations. Attorney's fees under Section 1988. Injunctive relief to stop ongoing surveillance.
Section 1983 claims have a 2-year statute of limitations in Oklahoma. For ongoing surveillance, the claim may accrue when you learned of the surveillance. Some claims may be barred by delayed discovery rules.
Your Digital Life Was Invaded. Fight Back.
When police conduct warrantless surveillance—tracking your location, searching your phone, or intercepting your communications—they violate constitutional protections that apply in the digital age.
No Fee Unless We Win