ACLU: Most US police don't seek warrants before tracking cell phones

The tracking of mobile phones is widespread across law enforcement agencies, according to the civil rights group

Many law enforcement agencies across the U.S. track mobile phones as part of investigations, but only a minority ask for court-ordered warrants, according to a new report released Monday by the American Civil Liberties Union.

More than 90 law enforcement agencies said they track mobile phones during investigations, but only six of those agencies reported receiving court-approved warrants after demonstrating that there's probable cause of a crime, according to an ACLU report based on public information requests filed by the group last year.

Ten agencies, including the Hawaii Department of Public Safety and the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation, told the ACLU they do not track mobile phones.

In most cases, police received subpoenas, typically from clerks of court or prosecutors, to track mobile phones, the ACLU said in its report.

The report raises "disturbing" privacy and civil liberties issues, said Catherine Crump, staff attorney for the ACLU's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project.

"Tracking someone's location is a substantial invasion of their privacy," she said in an email. "To know where a person goes is to know what they value, to know who they are."

Police should get a warrant before tracking mobile phones, Crump said. "The government shouldn't be engaging in such an invasive practice without strong safeguards," she added. "Having to go to a judge and prove that there is probable cause would be such a safeguard."

Among the law enforcement agencies that track mobile phones without warrants, according to the report: police departments in Phoenix; Washington, D.C.; Newark, New Jersey; Oklahoma City; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Salt Lake City. Several large police departments weren't included in the report.

The ACLU sent public records requests to 380 law enforcement agencies across the U.S. in August 2011, and 205 agencies responded. But about half of the agencies that responded refused to say whether they track mobile phone or gave "unclear" answers, the ACLU said.

Tracking a mobile phone should be held to the same standard as police searching a house, which requires a warrant, said Jim Dempsey, vice president for public policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a digital rights group.

The ACLU report represents a "clear confirmation" of the suspicion by several civil liberties and other groups that many police departments aren't getting warrants to track mobile phones, Dempsey said. "The government should be required to comply with what we think the [U.S.] Constitution requires, which is to get a warrant from a judge, except in emergency cases," he said.

For the last two years, the ACLU, CDT and several other groups, along with AOL,, Google, Microsoft and other companies, have been pushing for the U.S. Congress to rewrite the 26-year-old Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which governs law enforcement access to digital communication. The groups say the law is outdated and treats digital data inconsistently.

Three bills in Congress would require warrants for mobile phone tracking, but the legislation hasn't moved forward.

The ACLU report shows "widespread confusion about what the law actually requires," Dempsey said.

Crump agreed, saying that in some cases, police are tracking the people who call the mobile phone of someone they are investigating. "That means if a suspected criminal calls his mother or orders a pizza, the police also track the mom and the pizza delivery person," she said. "A huge number of innocent people get swept up in the tracking, and that's not the sort of targeted and tightly controlled use of an invasive practice that ought to be in place."

The law about tracking mobile phones is "in a state of chaos," she added. "In some places police do get warrants and demonstrate probable cause," she said. "But in others, the police don't involve a court at all."

The U.S. Department of Justice has questioned the need for changes to ECPA, saying quick access to information such as mobile-phone tracking data can save lives.

The ACLU report also raises concerns about the length of time that mobile carriers retain customer location information. Verizon Wireless keeps records for one year, Sprint Nextel for 18 to 24 months, and AT&T has retained location data since July 2008, according to information supplied to the ACLU by one police department. That retention of data is not disclosed in privacy policies, the ACLU said.

Representatives of the three carriers did not immediately respond to requests for comments.

Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for The IDG News Service. Follow Grant on Twitter at GrantGross. Grant's e-mail address is

Join the CSO newsletter!

Error: Please check your email address.

More about Amazon.comAmazon Web ServicesAOLC2CDTCPA AustraliaDepartment of JusticeGoogleIDGMicrosoftNextelPhoenixRequest DSLSprintTechnologyVerizonVerizonVerizon Wireless

Show Comments

Featured Whitepapers

Editor's Recommendations

Solution Centres

Stories by Grant Gross

Latest Videos

  • 150x50

    CSO Webinar: Will your data protection strategy be enough when disaster strikes?

    Speakers: - Paul O’Connor, Engagement leader - Performance Audit Group, Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) - Nigel Phair, Managing Director, Centre for Internet Safety - Joshua Stenhouse, Technical Evangelist, Zerto - Anthony Caruana, CSO MC & Moderator

    Play Video

  • 150x50

    CSO Webinar: The Human Factor - Your people are your biggest security weakness

    ​Speakers: David Lacey, Researcher and former CISO Royal Mail David Turner - Global Risk Management Expert Mark Guntrip - Group Manager, Email Protection, Proofpoint

    Play Video

  • 150x50

    CSO Webinar: Current ransomware defences are failing – but machine learning can drive a more proactive solution

    Speakers • Ty Miller, Director, Threat Intelligence • Mark Gregory, Leader, Network Engineering Research Group, RMIT • Jeff Lanza, Retired FBI Agent (USA) • Andy Solterbeck, VP Asia Pacific, Cylance • David Braue, CSO MC/Moderator What to expect: ​Hear from industry experts on the local and global ransomware threat landscape. Explore a new approach to dealing with ransomware using machine-learning techniques and by thinking about the problem in a fundamentally different way. Apply techniques for gathering insight into ransomware behaviour and find out what elements must go into a truly effective ransomware defence. Get a first-hand look at how ransomware actually works in practice, and how machine-learning techniques can pick up on its activities long before your employees do.

    Play Video

  • 150x50

    CSO Webinar: Get real about metadata to avoid a false sense of security

    Speakers: • Anthony Caruana – CSO MC and moderator • Ian Farquhar, Worldwide Virtual Security Team Lead, Gigamon • John Lindsay, Former CTO, iiNet • Skeeve Stevens, Futurist, Future Sumo • David Vaile - Vice chair of APF, Co-Convenor of the Cyberspace Law And Policy Community, UNSW Law Faculty This webinar covers: - A 101 on metadata - what it is and how to use it - Insight into a typical attack, what happens and what we would find when looking into the metadata - How to collect metadata, use this to detect attacks and get greater insight into how you can use this to protect your organisation - Learn how much raw data and metadata to retain and how long for - Get a reality check on how you're using your metadata and if this is enough to secure your organisation

    Play Video

  • 150x50

    CSO Webinar: How banking trojans work and how you can stop them

    CSO Webinar: How banking trojans work and how you can stop them Featuring: • John Baird, Director of Global Technology Production, Deutsche Bank • Samantha Macleod, GM Cyber Security, ME Bank • Sherrod DeGrippo, Director of Emerging Threats, Proofpoint (USA)

    Play Video

More videos

Blog Posts

Market Place