| 翻訳と辞書 |
| United States v. Graham ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
United States v. Graham
''United States v. Graham'', 846 F. Supp. 2d 384 (D. Md. 2012), was a Maryland District Court case in which the Court held that historical cell site location data is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Reacting to precedent established by the recent Supreme Court case United States v. Antoine Jones in conjunction with the application of the third party doctrine, Judge Richard D. Bennett, found that "information voluntarily disclosed to a third party ceases to enjoy Fourth Amendment protection" because that information no longer belongs to the consumer, but rather to the telecommunications company that handles the transmissions records.〔''(Obama admin wants warrantless access to cell phone location data )'' Timothy B. Lee (Mar. 8, 2012)〕 The historical cell site location data is then not subject to the privacy protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment standard of probable cause, but rather to the Stored Communications Act, which governs the voluntary or compelled disclosure of stored electronic communications records.
==Background==
With the increase in usage of cellular phones by the public, the government turned to exploitation of cellular phone technology to track the movements of suspects. This phenomenon led to suits by defendants who claimed that use of such technology to track their movements amounted to an invasion of their privacy.〔''(Live Tracking of Mobile Phones Prompts Court Fights on Privacy )'' Matt Richtel, The New York Times (December 10, 2005)〕
The courts were divided over whether such tracking amounted to intruding in a person’s personal sphere. Some courts decided that such tracking to obtain cell site location data implicated the Fourth Amendment, and applied the 'probable cause' standard stipulated under the Fourth Amendment to such cases- ''In re Application of the United States'' (F. Supp. 2d 113 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) ), ''In re Application of the United States'' (F. Supp. 2d 827 (S.D. Tex. 2010) ). These courts however also clarified that the Fourth Amendment is not implicated if the request for acquisition of cell site location information is for a short period of time.〔
Other cases were decided in favor of applying the ‘specific and articulable facts’ standard under the Stored Communications Act, since the courts believed that such acquisition of historical cell site location data did not implicate the Fourth Amendment- ''United States v. Dye'' (N.D. Ohio Apr. 27, 2011), ''United States v. Velasquez'' (N.D. Cal Oct, 22, 2010), ''In re Application of the United States for Historical Cell Site Data'', 724 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2013).〔
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「United States v. Graham」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|