According to the judge, this kind of mass data collection goes against the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches. Still, the judge allowed the evidence gathered in this particular case to be used, explaining that the officers acted in good faith and didn’t know at the time that the search was unconstitutional, a collaboration report by 404 Media and Court Watch reads.
As you’ve probably heard, cell towers routinely log the presence of nearby mobile devices. Typically, that’s recorded every seven seconds. When authorities request a tower dump, they compel a telecom provider to hand over the phone numbers and identifying information of all devices connected to a specific tower within a particular timeframe. In populated areas, this can mean the data of tens of thousands of individuals is swept up at once.
Law enforcement agencies have relied on tower dumps to aid criminal investigations. However, the practice has drawn criticism for its broad reach, as it does not target specific suspects but rather captures the data of anyone in the vicinity. This raises serious concerns under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The ruling emerged from a case involving Cory Spurlock, a Nevada resident accused of marijuana distribution and involvement in a murder-for-hire plot. Investigators used a tower dump to place Spurlock’s cellphone near several crime scenes. His legal team challenged the validity of this tactic, arguing that it constituted an unconstitutional search and that any resulting evidence should be thrown out.
Although police had obtained a warrant, they claimed the data collection did not qualify as a search under the Constitution.
Judge Miranda M. Du of the US District Court disagreed. She concluded that tower dumps do indeed qualify as searches and that the warrant used in this instance functioned as a general warrant, something explicitly banned by the Fourth Amendment. Nonetheless, she permitted the evidence to stand, citing the fact that officers believed they were operating within the law at the time and had acted in good faith. Because no court in the Ninth Circuit had previously ruled on this issue, Du applied the good faith exception, which allows evidence to be admitted if law enforcement was unaware that their actions were unconstitutional.
This marks the first time the Ninth Circuit has addressed the constitutionality of tower dumps, although other courts have already started weighing in. In February, a federal judge in Mississippi issued a similar ruling, which the Department of Justice has since appealed.
