New Jersey Supreme Court holds that police must get warrant for cell site data

In State v. Earls, No. 068765 (N.J. 2013), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that police must obtain a warrant in order to get cell site location information (CSLI) unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies.

During the investigation of several burglaries, police contacted - without a warrant - T-Mobile at three different times in one evening to obtain cell site data for the defendant's cell phone. The trial court found that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location of his cell phone and a warrant should have been obtained. However, they further found that the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement applied. The defendant pled guilty.

On appeal, the intermediate appellate court found that the "defendant had no constitutionally protected privacy interest" because he had "no reasonable expectation of privacy in [his] movements on public highways or the general location of [his] cell phone."

In its decision, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Appellate Division, noting that the state's constitution provides greater protection than the Fourth Amendment and finding that police must obtain a warrant before acquiring CSLI.

[P]eople do not buy cell phones to serve as tracking devices or reasonably expect them to be used by the government in that way. We therefore find that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location of their cell phones under the State Constitution.

However, the court noted that recognized exceptions are still applicable and thus remanded to the Appellate Division for consideration of the emergency aid doctrine or other warrant exceptions.