Matter Of The Application Of The United States Of America For An Order Directing A Provider Of Electronic Communication Service To Disclose Records To The Government. United States Of America, 08-4227.
Citation | 620 F.3d 304 |
Decision Date | 07 September 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 08-4227.,08-4227. |
Parties | In the Matter of the APPLICATION OF the UNITED STATES of America FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING A PROVIDER OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE TO DISCLOSE RECORDS TO the GOVERNMENT. United States of America, Appellant. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Mary Beth Buchanan, Robert L. Eberhardt, Office of the United States Attorney, Pittsburgh, PA, Mark Eckenwiler (Argued), United States Department of Justice, Office of Enforcement Operations, Washington, DC, for Appellant.
Lisa B. Freeland, Office of Federal Public Defender, Witold J. Walczak, American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, PA, Jennifer Granick, Kevin S. Bankston (Argued), Matthew Zimmerman, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Susan A. Freiwald (Argued), University of San Francisco School of Law, San Francisco, CA, Jim Dempsey, Harley Geiger, Center for Democracy and Technology, Washington, DC, Catherine Crump, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY, for Amici Appellees.
Before: SLOVITER, ROTH, and TASHIMA, * Circuit Judges.
The United States (“Government”) applied for a court order pursuant to a provision of the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d), to compel an unnamed cell phone provider to produce a customer's “historical cellular tower data,” also known as cell site location information or “CSLI.” App. at 64. The Magistrate Judge (“MJ”) denied the application. See In re Application of the United States for an Order Directing a Provider of Elec. Commc'n Serv. to Disclose Records to the Gov't, 534 F.Supp.2d 585, 616 (W.D.Pa.2008) (hereafter “ MJOp.”). In doing so, the MJ wrote an extensive opinion that rejected the Government's analysis of the statutory language, the legislative history, and the Government's rationale for its request. On the Government's appeal to the District Court, the Court recognized “the important and complex matters presented in this case,” but affirmed in a two page order without analysis. In re Application of the United States for an Order Directing a Provider of Elec. Commc'n Serv. to Disclose Records to the Gov't, No. 07-524M, 2008 WL 4191511, at *1 (W.D.Pa. Sept.10, 2008). The Government appeals.
We have de novo review. See DIRECTV Inc. v. Seijas, 508 F.3d 123, 125 (3d Cir.2007). This appeal gives us our first opportunity to review whether a court can deny a Government application under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) after the Government has satisfied its burden of proof under that provision, a task that to our knowledge has not been performed by any other court of appeals. 1
The growth of electronic communications has stimulated Congress to enact statutes that provide both access to information heretofore unavailable for law enforcement purposes and, at the same time, protect users of such communication services from intrusion that Congress deems unwarranted. The Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), was enacted in 1986 as Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (“ECPA”), Pub.L. No. 99-508, 100 Stat. 1848 (1986) ( ), which amended the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (the “Wiretap Act”), Pub.L. No. 90-351, 82 Stat. 197 (1968). 2 In 1994, Congress enacted the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (“CALEA”), Pub.L. No. 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279, 4292 (1994) ( ), in part to amend the SCA.
The SCA is directed to disclosure of communication information by providers of electronic communications (“providers”). Section 2703(a) covers the circumstances in which a governmental entity may require providers to disclose the contents of wire or electronic communications in electronic storage; section 2703(b) covers the circumstances in which a governmental entity may require providers to disclose the contents of wire or electronic communications held by a remote computing service. See 18 U.S.C. § 2703(a)-(b). Neither of those sections is at issue here. The Government does not here seek disclosure of the contents of wire or electronic communications. Instead, the Government seeks what is referred to in the statute as “a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service,” a term that expressly excludes the contents of communications. Id. 2703(c)(1).
Section 2703(c)(1) of the SCA provides:
(C) has the consent of the subscriber or customer to such disclosure;
Id. The formal separation of these options in § 2703(c)(1) evinces Congressional intent to separate the requirements for their application. Each option in § 2703(c)(1) is an independently authorized procedure. The only options relevant to the matter before us are § 2703(c)(1)(A) for obtaining a warrant and § 2703(c)(1)(B) for obtaining a court order under § 2703(d).
A third option covered by the statute provides for the governmental entity to use “an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena....” Id. § 2703(c)(2). The subpoena option covers more limited information-such as a customer's name, address, and certain technical information 3 -as distinguished from that referred to in § 2703(c)(1) which broadly covers “a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber or customer.” The Government may seek such information under any of these three options ex parte, and no notice is required to a subscriber or customer. See id. § 2703(c)(3).
In submitting its request to the MJ in this case, the Government did not obtain either a warrant under § 2703(c)(1)(A), or a subpoena under § 2703(c)(2), nor did it secure the consent of the subscriber under § 2703(c)(1)(C). Instead it sought a court order as authorized by § 2703(c)(1)(B). The requirements for a court order are set forth in § 2703(d) as follows:
(d) Requirements for court order.-A court order for disclosure under subsection (b) or (c) may be issued by any court that is a court of competent jurisdiction and shall issue only if the governmental entity offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation. In the case of a State governmental authority, such a court order shall not issue if prohibited by the law of such State. A court issuing an order pursuant to this section, on a motion made promptly by the service provider, may quash or modify such order, if the information or records requested are unusually voluminous in nature or compliance with such order otherwise would cause an undue burden on such provider.
Id. § 2703(d) (emphasis added).
As the Government notes in its reply brief, there is no dispute that historical CSLI is a “record or other information pertaining to a subscriber ... or customer,” and therefore falls within the scope of § 2703(c)(1). Instead, the dispute in this case concerns the standard for a § 2703(d) order. The Government states that the records at issue, which are kept by providers in the regular course of their business, include CSLI, i.e., the location of the antenna tower and, where applicable, which of the tower's “faces” carried a given call at its beginning and end and, inter alia, the time and date of a call.
App. at 64. The Government does not foreclose the possibility that in a future case it will argue that the SCA may be read to authorize disclosure of additional material.
The MJ concluded, “as a matter of statutory interpretation, that nothing in the provisions of the electronic communications legislation authorizes it [i.e., the MJ] to order a [provider's] covert disclosure of CSLI absent a showing of probable cause under Rule 41.” MJOp., 534 F.Supp.2d at 610. Rule 41(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, referred to by the MJ, provides:
Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(d) (emphasis added).
The Government argues that 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) on its face requires only that it make a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Espudo
...standard is a significantly lower legal hurdle than probable cause. See In re App. of the U.S. Directing a Provider of Elec. Commc'n Serv. to Disclose Records to the Gov't, 620 F.3d 304, 313–315 (3d Cir.2010). Title III of ECPA covers pen registers and trap and trace devices. Pub. L. No. 99......
-
United States v. Caraballo
...of cell-site-location records ... cannot long be maintained.”) with In re Application of the United States for Order Directing Provider of Elec. Commc'n Serv. to Disclose Records to Gov't, 620 F.3d 304, 317 (3d Cir.2010) (“A cell phone customer has not ‘voluntarily’ shared his location info......
-
United States v. Ramirez, CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 19-10072-DPW
...Pet. for a Writ of Cert. at 22, No-16-402 (Sept. 26, 2016) (citing In re Application of U.S. for an Order Directing a Provider of Elec. Commc'n Serv. to Disclose Records to Gov't , 620 F.3d 304, 319 (3d Cir. 2010) (affirming decision that the § 2703(d) standard was lower than probable cause......
-
In re Application for Tel. Info. Needed for a Criminal Investigation
...is required by the Fourth Amendment to obtain a warrant."); In re Application of U.S. for an Order Directing a Provider of Elec. Commc'n Serv. to Disclose Records to Gov't ("Third Circuit Opinion"), 620 F.3d 304, 315 (3d Cir.2010) (explaining that the § 2703(d) standard is "less stringent t......
-
Texas Federal Judge Finding Does Not Add Much to Privacy Debate Over Location Data
...them to Twitter. Also, the Third Circuit's opinion in In re Application for an Order to Disclose Records (Third Circuit Opinion), 620 F.3d 304 (3rd Cir. 2010), held that a Magistrate Judge could require the government to make a probable cause showing under the SCA if it was determined that ......
-
George Floyd, general warrants, and cell-site simulators
...Elec. Commc’n Serv. to Disclose Recs. to the Gov’t, 534 F. Supp. 2d 585, 589–90 (W.D. Pa. 2008) (citation omitted), rev’d on other grounds 620 F.3d 304, 313 (3d Cir. 2010); see also State v. Copes, 165 A.3d 418, 423 (Md. 2017) (cell-site simulators function because “a cell phone—when turned......
-
Back to Katz: reasonable expectation of privacy in the Facebook age.
...term 'solely' in a provision of the CALEA."), aff'd, No. 07-524M, 2008 WL 4191511, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 10, 2008), vacated and remanded, 620 F.3d 304, 319 (3rd Cir. Sept. 7, (276.) See ECPA Hearing, supra note 20, at 82-83 (statement of Stephen Win. Smith, U.S. Mag. J.) (citing 18 U.S.C. [......
-
Search and Seizure of Electronic Devices
...a similar conclusion. See In re United States for an Order Directing Provider of Elec. Commun. Serv. to Disclose Records to the Gov’t , 620 F.3d 304, 319 (3rd Cir. 2010). Thus far, most federal circuit courts hold that obtaining historical cell site location data does not violate the Fourth......
-
Lichtenberger, Sparks, and Wicks: the Future of the Private Search Doctrine
...2489-91; see also In re Application of the U.S. for an Order Directing a Provider of Elec. Commc'n Serv. to Disclose Records to the Gov't, 620 F.3d 304, 317 (3rd Cir. 2010) ("[I]t is unlikely that cell phone customers are aware that their cell phone providers collect and store historical lo......