In a first, a federal judge ruled that evidence found through the use of a stingray device is inadmissible. Reuters reports on the case, United States v. Raymond Lambis, which involved a man targeted in a US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigation. The DEA used a stingray, a surveillance tool used to reveal a phone’s location, to identify Raymond Lambis’ apartment as the most likely location of a cell phone identified during a drug trafficking probe. Upon searching the apartment, the DEA discovered a kilogram of cocaine.
According to ArsTechnica, the DEA sought a warrant seeking location information and cell-site data for a particular 646 area code phone number. The warrant was based on communications obtained from a wiretap order that suggested illegal drug activity. With the information provided by the cell-site location, the DEA was able to determine the general vicinity of the targeted cell phone, which pointed to the intersection of Broadway and 177th streets in Manhattan. The DEA then used a stingray device, which mimics a cell phone tower and forces cell phones in the area to transmit “pings” back to the device. This enabled law enforcement to pinpoint a particular phone’s location.
Using the handheld stingray device, the DEA first located the building, and then the individual apartment where the targeted cell phone’s signal appeared strongest. Shortly after, the DEA knocked on the apartment door, where the suspect’s father allowed agents in and permitted the search. During the search, the agents found a kilogram of cocaine.
The ruling marks the first time a federal judge has suppressed evidence obtained using a stingray. Previously, arguments validating the use of such devices hinged on the “Third Party Doctrine,” which stemmed from the Supreme Court’s 1979 ruling in Smith v. Maryland. The Third Party Doctrine states that individuals do not have a privacy interest in data that they hand over to third parties, like a phone company. In that 1979 case, the Supreme Court held that the installation of a pen registry at the telephone company’s central office to get a list of numbers called by the suspect’s phone did not constitute a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and therefore did not require a warrant.
US District Judge William Pauley addressed the Third Party Doctrine in his opinion, stating “… the location information detected by a cell-site simulator is different in kind from pen register information: it is neither initiated by the user nor sent to a third-party….”
For both pen register information and [cell site location information], the Government ultimately obtains the information from the service provider who is keeping a record of the information. With the cell-site simulator, the Government cuts out the middleman and obtains the information directly. Without a third-party, the third-party doctrine is inapplicable. (emphasis added)
Absent a search warrant, the government may not turn a citizen’s cell phone into a tracking device.
According to the ACLU, a case decided in the Maryland appeals court in March was the first state appellate court to order for the suppression of evidence obtained through the use of a stingray. Judge Pauley’s decision is believed to be the first at the federal level.
